ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As all the dental staff, including nurses and practitioners, are exposed to various routes of contamination due to the novel COVID-19 virus, which is still unknown to the scientific world, developing strategies to reduce the risk of transmission and decontaminate surfaces in a dental office would be of high importance. Although there is still insufficient data on managing this virus in dental offices, several studies have suggested protocols for improving care. AIM: This study aimed to review present investigations and reach a conclusion on what we know and need to know to combat this virus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this review, Scopus, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched using the keywords "COVID-19,” "SARS-CoV-2,” "Medical Disinfectants,” "Personal Protective Equipment's,” and "Surface Decontamination.” Articles were reviewed, and finally, relevant articles published during 2000–2022 were included in the final paper. RESULTS: The present research concluded that using a combination of the face shield and N95 masks protected the eyes, nose, and mouth. To have more efficient protection, water-resistant long-sleeved gowns and gloves were highly suggested. To overcome aerosols, high-performance air filters and ultraviolet were found quite effective. Allowing the patient to use antiseptic mouthwash before starting the treatment could reduce oral microorganisms and the following airborne contamination. CONCLUSION: This review has gathered all available data regarding dentistry and COVID-19 in order to conclude what has been achieved yet in the prevention of this virus through dental offices;however, more investigations are needed to have a definitive protocol against the virus.
ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was a challenge for all dental professionals who had to rapidly update infection prevention and control (IPAC) guidelines and protocols due to increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during common aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), and a lack of consensus on how best to mitigate the risk of transmission in a dental office. Thus, the purpose of this descriptive study was to compare the variance in IPAC guidelines for dental offices that emerged, and to assess practice consistency from early to mid-2020. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 26 to July 8, 2020 for IPAC documentation specific to the dental office during the COVID-19 pandemic. Documents that met the inclusion criteria were independently reviewed. Data was extracted using a framework based on the following IPAC domains: pre-appointment, waiting room, personal protective equipment (PPE) selection, treatment room, and post-dismissal. Results: A total of 67 IPAC documents specific to dental offices were reviewed in this study. Included documents originated from 22 dental associations, 17 peer-reviewed articles, 13 dental regulators, 11 government bodies, two public health units, and two dental corporations. There was a great degree of variance with IPAC guidelines from the pre-appointment stage, during treatment, and post-treatment. Recommendations that emerged with some level of consistency involved pre-screening patients for COVID-19 symptoms (97%), staggering appointments (84%), social distancing, minimizing occupants in the waiting room, wearing a face shield over protective eyewear for AGPs (92%), and preprocedural rinses (84%). There was less consistency with recommendations for consolidating multiple appointments (36%), waiting room ventilation (46%), N95 masks (47%) versus FFP2/FFP3 masks (30%) use for AGPs, fit-testing respirators (37%), enclosing open operatories for AGPs (28%), prioritizing minimally invasive procedures (30%), and using third-party laundry companies (32%). Conclusions: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, lack of consensus on mode of spread, and need for rapid action resulted in a significant variation in most downstream IPAC interventions in the hierarchy of controls, including choice of PPE, treatment room, and post-dismissal domains. Upstream interventions, including pre-appointment and waiting room domains, were relatively consistent in practices in early to mid-2020.
ABSTRACT
Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) were introduced to protect the wearer by removing small particles from inspired air. FFRs are now also used to reduce spread of transmissible agents from the wearer and used outside traditional healthcare and other workplaces. The COVID-19 pandemic increased concerns about potential adverse effects on wearers. METHOD: A PUBMED query retrieved papers through June 2022. Abstracts and selected full text papers were systematically reviewed by the authors. This paper focuses upon cardiopulmonary physiologic effects (e.g., ventilation, CO2 elimination, oxygen uptake, and respiratory control) with emphasis upon current and potential research methods as well as summarizing results. RESULTS: 1985 records were identified, of which only 26% were published prior to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Effects on CO2 elimination appear more likely to be potentially significant than effects on oxygenation or cardiovascular function. While FFRs appear well tolerated by healthy persons, more research is needed for those with pulmonary or cardiac disorders and for children. Many traditional pulmonary exercise study methods require special care when applied to filtering facepiece respirators. Studying additional parameters may explain the paradox of many subjective discomfort reports despite very limited physiologic effects. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are most at risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection. Their preparedness, as a result of provision and access to personal protective equipment (PPE), training programmes and awareness and practices on infection prevention and control measures, is integral for the prevention of infectious disease transmission. Objective(s): This study was conducted to assess the preparedness and practices of HCWs during COVID-19 first wave outbreak in Brunei Darussalam. Method(s): A cross-sectional study using a pre-designed and self-administered web-based questionnaire was conducted among HCWs from government and private health sectors ranging from primary to tertiary health facilities in Brunei Darussalam. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and chi-square test was used for statistical significance. Result(s): A total of 511 HCWs participated in the study. Nurses (64%) and HCWs based at hospitals (66%) made up the majority of the study participants, with 74% having occupational exposure to COVID-19 cases. More than 99% of HCWs used respiratory PPE, and 94% used gloves. 74% had undergone respirator fit testing and 65% had received PPE awareness session within the last one year. Coverage in training programmes was found to be low among HCWs from private health facilities. Conclusion(s): Majority of HCWs who had received updated training programmes and therefore were better prepared came from government health facilities. HCWs from private health facilities lacked preparedness training programmes and as such, there needs to be improvement to enhance preparedness measures in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and for future infectious disease outbreaks. Copyright © The Author(s) 2021.
ABSTRACT
Filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) were introduced to protect the wearer by removing small particles from inspired air. FFRs are now also used to reduce spread of transmissible agents from the wearer and used outside traditional healthcare and other workplaces. The COVID-19 pandemic increased concerns about potential adverse effects on wearers. METHOD: A PUBMED query retrieved papers through June 2022. Abstracts and selected full text papers were systematically reviewed by the authors. This paper focuses upon cardiopulmonary physiologic effects (e.g., ventilation, CO2 elimination, oxygen uptake, and respiratory control) with emphasis upon current and potential research methods as well as summarizing results. RESULTS: 1985 records were identified, of which only 26% were published prior to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Effects on CO2 elimination appear more likely to be potentially significant than effects on oxygenation or cardiovascular function. While FFRs appear well tolerated by healthy persons, more research is needed for those with pulmonary or cardiac disorders and for children. Many traditional pulmonary exercise study methods require special care when applied to filtering facepiece respirators. Studying additional parameters may explain the paradox of many subjective discomfort reports despite very limited physiologic effects. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.