Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
Oral Dis ; 27 Suppl 3: 674-683, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1434797

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is an emerging infectious disease caused by the widespread transmission of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Some of those infected become seriously ill. Others do not show any symptoms, but can still contribute to transmission of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is excreted in the oral cavity and can be spread via aerosols. Aerosol generating procedures in dental health care can increase the risk of transmission of the virus. Due to the risk of infection of both dental healthcare workers and patients, additional infection control measures for all patients are strongly recommended when providing dental health care. Consideration should be given to which infection control measures are necessary when providing care in both the current situation and in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Delivery of Health Care , Dental Care , Disease Outbreaks , Health Personnel , Humans , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 648899, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273341

ABSTRACT

Moving within the second wave of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, dental education delivery has been profoundly affected by this crisis, so has the structure, evaluation, and future of dental education. Both pre-clinical and clinical dental education have experienced challenges ranging from fully online educational content to limited dental training for senior dental students. This crisis appears to be a tipping point that produced confusion in dental teaching especially clinical sciences. Although medical institutions immediately started to adapt to the unexpected COVID-19 crisis, dental and oral health educational services are profoundly impaired due to the dental team's propinquity to the patient and the aerosols generated during routine dental therapeutic procedures. Dental students unlike other medical students are considered to be at the highest risk due to the nature of their clinical training that includes working in the oral cavity of patients using aerosol-generating equipment. Some dental schools have taken the leadership and documented their modifications during this pandemic; however, there is a serious need for further investigation and wide range screening of the situation in the dental schools during the COVID-19 crisis. The aim of this mini-review is to present these challenges and how academic dental institutions have implemented strategies to overcome them.

3.
Mil Med ; 2021 Jun 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266125

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The recent COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the necessity of protecting health care providers (HCPs) against the transmission of infectious agents during dental procedures. To this end, the effectiveness of several air cleaning devices (ACDs) in reducing HCPs exposure to aerosols generated during dental procedures was estimated, separately or in combination with each other. These ACDs were a chairside unit capturing aerosols at the source of generation, and four ambient ACDs: a portable ambient ACD; a negative pressure module; a custom made, fan-operated and wall-mounted air filter (WMAF); and a smaller and passive version of the latter. The last three ACDs were intended for mobile dental clinics (MDCs) only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This assessment was performed in two different environments: in a dental clinic operatory and in a MDC. Two dental personnel, acting in the roles of dentist and dental assistant, performed on simulated patient aerosol-generating and non-aerosol-generating procedures. For each 5-minute scenario, the cumulative exposure to airborne particulate matter 10 µm in size or smaller (PM10) was determined by calculating the sum of all 1 second readings obtained with personal and ambient air monitors. The effectiveness of the ACDs in capturing PM10 was estimated based on the capability of the ACDs to keep PM10 level at or below the initial background level. RESULTS: In all conditions assessed in the dental clinic operatory, when both the chairside and portable ambient ACDs were functioning, an estimated effectiveness of 100% in capturing PM10 was achieved. In the MDC, in all conditions where the chairside ACD was used without the negative pressure module, an estimated effectiveness of 100% was also achieved. The simultaneous operation of the negative pressure module in the MDC, which led to a room negative pressure of -0.25 inch wc, reduced the chairside ACD's effectiveness in capturing aerosols. Conversely, the use of the WMAF in the MDC in combination with the chairside ACD further reduced exposure to PM10 below the initial background level. Nonetheless, in all conditions assessed in both settings (dental clinic operatory and MDC), larger visible aerosols were produced, often landing on the surrounding environment. A fair portion of these aerosols landed on the inside of the chairside ACD flange. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment suggests that the use of the tested chairside ACD, by capturing aerosols at the source of generation, had the greatest impact on reducing exposure of dental personnel to PM10 produced during dental procedures. This study also indicates that such exposure is further reduced with the addition of an ambient ACD. However, creating a negative pressure room as high as -0.25 inch wc can lead to air turbulence reducing the effectiveness of ACDs in capturing aerosols at the source. Furthermore, the presence of uncaptured droplets and spatter on the surrounding environment supports the need to complement the use of engineering controls with proper administrative controls and personal protective equipment, as recommended by governmental agencies and the scientific community for preventing the transmission of infection in health care settings.

4.
Front Psychiatry ; 12: 624125, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1110353

ABSTRACT

Aims: This study aimed to describe how the first phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected older persons from the general Finnish population who are at risk of developing or have cognitive impairment, specifically, to describe whether participants experienced a change in risk factors that are relevant for the prevention of cognitive decline including diet, physical activity, access to medical care, socially and cognitively stimulating activities, and emotional health and well-being. Method: A postal survey was sent in June 2020 to 859 participants from the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER), an ongoing longitudinal study. The survey was developed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and related infection-control measures on daily life, specifically commitment to distancing measures, access to health care and social services, daily activities, and changes in cognitive and social activities. Results: By September 2020, 613 (71%) participants responded (mean age = 77.7 years, 32% lived alone, and 80% had at least one chronic condition). Three quarters adopted some distancing practices during the first months of the pandemic. Older participants were more likely to practice total isolation than younger ones (29 vs. 19%; p = 0.003). Non-acute health-care visits were canceled for 5% of the participants who needed appointments, but cancellations in dental health care (43%), home aid (30%), and rehabilitative services (53%) were more common. Pandemic-related changes were reported in social engagements, for example, less contact with friends (55%) and family (31%), or less frequent attendance in cultural events (38%) or associations (25%), although remote contact with others increased for 40%. Feelings of loneliness increased for 21%, particularly those who were older (p = 0.023) or living alone (p < 0.001). Physical activity reduced for 34%, but dietary habits remained stable or improved. Pandemic-related changes in lifestyle and activities were more evident among those living alone. Conclusions: Finnish older persons generally reported less negative changes in lifestyles and behaviors during the pandemic than expected. Older people and those living alone seemed more susceptible to negative changes. It is important to compare how coping strategies may compare with other European countries to identify factors that may help older individuals to maintain healthy lifestyles during future waves of COVID-19.

5.
Int Dent J ; 71(3): 251-262, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1077915

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a viral disease declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020, has posed great changes to many sectors of society across the globe. Its virulence and rapid dissemination have forced the adoption of strict public health measures in most countries, which, collaterally, resulted in economic hardship. This article is the first in a series of 3 that aims to contextualise the clinical impact of COVID-19 for the dental profession. It presents the epidemiological conditions of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), namely, its modes of transmission, incubation, and transmissibility period, signs and symptoms, immunity, immunological tests, and risk management in dental care. Individuals in dental care settings are exposed to 3 potential sources of contamination with COVID-19: close interpersonal contacts (<1 m), contact with saliva, and aerosol-generating dental procedures. Thus, a risk management model is propsoed for the provision of dental care depending on the epidemiological setting, the patient's characteristics, and the type of procedures performed in the office environment. Although herd immunity seems difficult to achieve, a significant number of people has been infected throughout the first 9 months of the pandemic and vaccination has been implemented, which means that there will be a growing number of presumable "immune" individuals that might not require many precautions that differ from those before COVID-19. In conclusion, dental care professionals may manage their risk by following the proposed model, which considers the recommendations by local and international health authorities, thus providing a safe environment for both professionals and patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Public Health , Dental Care , Humans , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013686, 2020 10 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-847761

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many dental procedures produce aerosols (droplets, droplet nuclei and splatter) that harbour various pathogenic micro-organisms and may pose a risk for the spread of infections between dentist and patient. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to greater concern about this risk. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. We assessed heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth. The results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU. High-volume evacuator Use of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD -47.41, 95% CI -92.76 to -2.06; 3 RCTs, 122 participants (two studies had split-mouth design); very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD -1.00, -2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants). One split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU -2.30, 95% CI -5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD -2.20, 95% CI -14.01 to 9.61). Dental isolation combination system One RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD -0.35, -0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD -125.20, 95% CI -174.02 to -76.38) or HVE (MD -109.30, 95% CI -153.01 to -65.59). Rubber dam One split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD -16.20, 95% CI -19.36 to -13.04) and two-metre distance (MD -11.70, 95% CI -15.82 to -7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.00). One split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD -251.00, 95% CI -267.95 to -234.05) and dental unit light (MD -12.70, 95% CI -12.85 to -12.55). Air cleaning systems One split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD -66.70 CFU, 95% CI -120.15 to -13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD -32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to -13.25). Another CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD -483.56 CFU, 95% CI -550.02 to -417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD -319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to -252.68). Disinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants Two RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD -124.00, 95% CI -135.78 to -112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD -656.45, 95% CI -672.74 to -640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD -644.55, 95% CI -668.70 to -620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD -59.30, 95% CI -64.16 to -54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD -11.90, 95% CI -35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols. All of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions. We did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging. Studies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.


Subject(s)
Air Microbiology , Bacterial Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control, Dental/methods , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Virus Diseases/prevention & control , Adolescent , Adult , Aerosols , Aged , Air Filters , Child , Child, Preschool , Colony Count, Microbial/methods , Dentistry , Disinfectants , Humans , Infection Control, Dental/economics , Infection Control, Dental/instrumentation , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Rubber Dams , Suction , Young Adult
7.
J Infect Public Health ; 13(12): 1805-1810, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-838351

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a severe global acute respiratory pandemic around the world in just a few months with an increasing number of infections and deaths. COVID-19 is a highly contagious and fatal disease. Almost everyone in the population is susceptible, and the incubation period is 1-14 days, mostly 3-7 days. The clinical symptoms of the COVID-19 are fever, dry cough and fatigue. Some patients are accompanied by symptoms such as nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat, myalgia and diarrhea. Severe patients could even develop acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shocks, metabolic acidosis and multifunctional organ failure, etc. Due to the relatively closed environment of dental clinics and the unique nature of dental procedures, both dental personnel and patients are easy to get infection through currently known respiratory droplet transmission, aerosol transmission, close contact transmission and other ways, inducing mutual cross-infection. Dental practitioners are facing unprecedented challenges due to the high risk of exposure to droplets and aerosols from saliva and other body fluids during dental procedures. Based on our experience and relevant research, this article introduces the basic knowledge about COVID-19 and the corresponding protective measures for dental practitioners, includes the risk of infection during dental procedures, the precautions related to the patients, infection control measures during dental treatment in clinics, protection measures at different levels for dental practitioners, and emergency dental treatment for confirmed COVID-19. It is the responsibility of every dental practitioner to fully understand the characteristics of the new coronavirus and strictly implement the most appropriate protective measures to reduce and control the risk of cross infection in dental procedures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Dentistry , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Infection Control, Dental , Pandemics
8.
Int J Dent ; 2020: 8894794, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-659627

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2, a virus causing severe acute respiratory syndrome, has inundated the whole world, generating global health concerns. There is a wildfire-like effect, despite the extensive range of efforts exercised by the affected countries to restrain the expanse of this pandemic, owing to its community spread pattern. Dental specialists in the upcoming days will likely come across patients with presumed or confirmed COVID-19 and will have to ensure stringent infection prevention and control to prevent its nosocomial spread. This paper strives to provide a brief overview of the etiology, incubation, symptoms, and transmission paradigms of this novel infection and how to minimize the spread in a dental healthcare setting. This review presents evidence-based patient management practice and protocols from the available literature to help formulate a contingency plan with recommendations, for the dental practices prior to patients' visit, during in-office dental treatment, and post-treatment, during the pandemic and after.

10.
Oral Radiol ; 36(4): 395-399, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-617293

ABSTRACT

Dental professionals have always been meticulous about infection control due to high risk of cross-contamination during dental procedures. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to review and revise our current practice of infection control and develop more strict protocols that will prevent nosocomial spread of infection during COVID-19 outbreak and future pandemics. The risk of contamination is high during dental radiography if proper disinfection techniques are not applied. This document provides advice and guidance for infection control when practicing dental radiography during COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Infection Control/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Radiography, Dental/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL