ABSTRACT
Objectives: In patients with periodontal disease, the risk of COVID-19 is very high, so it is important to check oral health. Because the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 disease are not fully understood and the relationship between severity, mortality, and oral health is challenging, in the present study, we tried to investigate the relationship between clinical outcomes and COVID-19. Therefore, the present study evaluated the associations between the dry mouth, Oral lesions, and Orofacial pain with COVID-19. Method(s): The present study is based on PRISMA guidelines;all articles were published in international databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, and Embase between March 2019 and May 2022. 95% confidence interval for effect size with random effect modal and REML were calculated. Meta-analysis of data collected from selected studies was performed using STATA.V16 software. Result(s): In the initial review, the s of 312 studies were reviewed, two authors reviewed the full text of 36 studies, and finally, 16 studies were selected. The prevalence of dry mouth and oral lesions in patients with COVID-19 was 39% (ES: 95% CI, 32 % to 46%) and 32% (ES: 95% CI, 22 % to 42%), respectively. Conclusion(s): The prevalence of dry mouth in patients with COVID-19 was higher (39%) than oral lesions (32%) and orofacial pain (23%). Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Airborne transmission is a major concern for many infectious pathogens, including the novel coronavirus. Ventilation is the principal engineering method used to control airborne health hazards in buildings. Understanding potential air pollution hazards are a particular concern for highly populated indoor environments, such as workplaces and classrooms. This study discusses the results of ventilation testing in a university classroom which contains two fan coil units as the primary HVAC system. A particle nebulizer was used to release aerosol particles into the air, and multiple particulate measuring devices were placed strategically around the room to measure the particle concentration over time. An exponential particle decay rate is determined from the data and converted to a particle concentration half-life, which ranged from over 60 minutes down to under 10 minutes. We then assess how quickly the particles were removed by ventilation systems with varying conditions, including the addition of both high-and low-cost portable mitigation devices into the classroom. Our results indicate that a low-cost unit, made of a simple box fan with a MERV13 filter taped to it, may perform as well at removing particles from a room as a high-cost HEPA filter unit, owing to a tradeoff between filtration efficiency and the number of air changes per hour. As is observed in numerous other studies, the particle concentration half-life in each classroom setup decreases as the mechanical air changes per hour increases from about 1.3 to 9.3. These results are used to evaluate the potential personal exposure risk associated with various classroom ventilation setups. Our results indicate that, when compared to running the fan coil units on low fan speed, operating on a high fan speed reduces potential exposure by 22% and using a portable HEPA filter in the room reduces potential exposure by 66%.
ABSTRACT
Study Objectives: To overcome the shortage of negative pressure isolation rooms during the 2019 novel coronavirus pandemic, the novel Covering for Operations during Viral Emergency Response (COVER) device was developed. The main goal of the device is to generate a portable negative pressure environment using non-medical supplies to improve patient and health care worker safety. Several variations of the device were created and tested for their ability to generate the -2.5 pascal (Pa) pressure recommended by the Centers for Disease Control [1]. Methods: Device Construction The device utilizes a rigid, polyvinyl chloride (PVC)-based frame covered in a transparent plastic sheet with a connected sound-isolated vacuum (Figure 1). Access to the patient can occur from either customizable user-made perforations along guidelines marked on the top and sides of the transparent sheet or from along the sheet’s bottom edge. To generate airflow and create a negative pressure environment, the use of either two 10-inch portable fans or various vacuums (Dyson® 1.6 hp, Shop-Vac® 2.5 hp, and Shop-Vac® 3.5 hp) were tested. These airflow-generating fans or vacuums were attached to the device’s two HEPA filter boxes either directly in the case of the fans or using standard 2.75-inch tubing. Airflow and Pressure Differential Testing To assess for device efficacy, we tested the airflow generated by the device using either the fans or the various vacuums. The airflow was tested using a TSI-ALNOR EBT-731 (TSI Incorporated, Shoreview, Minnesota) capture hood and reported in cubic feet per minute (cfm). A PPM3-S Abatement Portable Differential Pressure Monitor (Abatement Technologies, Fort Erie, Canada) was used to record pressure differentials in pascals in real time within the device using each of the vacuums. The device’s pressure differential was measured with a simulated patient present and with and without the maximum 60 cm of functional access cuts made into the device. Results: The airflow measurements are displayed in Table 1. The fans as part of the fully constructed device did not generate any measurable airflow and were dropped from subsequent testing. The highest measured airflow rates and pressure differentials were observed with the 3.5 hp vacuum. All the vacuums generated an observable negative pressure environment even with a simulated patient and 60 cm of access cuts made into the device as shown in Table 2. Conclusion: The COVER device uses off-the-shelf, non-medical components to generate a negative pressure environment using a simulated patient and an aggregate of 60cm of patient care access cuts. [Formula presented] [Formula presented]
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the Dentists' practice in compliance with general and guidelines for handling Coronavirus Disease 2019. Material and Methods: PubMed, Embase, ISI, Scopus, Medicine have been used to search for articles until September 2020. EndNote X9 was used to manage electronic resources as a resource. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer's manual (JBI) tools was used to assess the quality of studies included in the current systematic and meta-analysis review. The 95% confidence interval (CI) effect size, the random effect model, and the Restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) methods have all been calculated. I2 values of more than 50% indicated moderate-to-high heterogeneity. Stata/MP v.16 (the fastest version of Stata) statistical software was used to evaluate the Meta-analysis. Results: 39 articles were found in the initial keyword search. The full text of 16 studies was reviewed, and six studies were selected in the end. 72% of participants used a face mask during the dental procedure (72%, 95% CI;40%-100%). 63% of participants measured fever when patients arrived during the COVID-19 pandemic (63%, 95% CI;46%-79%). Moreover, 72% of participants used a face mask during the dental procedure (72%, 95% CI;40%-100%). According to JBI tools, all studies had a moderate risk of bias. Conclusion: The results show that the performance of dental professionals in the conditions of the COVID-19 epidemic is not favorable. Training should be under the standards of treatment guidelines and further measures so that dental professionals can show proper practice by increasing their awareness of this virus and following up on its infection.