Conservative Management of Dentigerous Cysts Associated With Mixed Dentition: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objectives The pediatric dentigerous cysts might vary by region and population group. Large cystic lesions are typically treated with marsupialization before enucleation in order to decompress the lesion and reduce its volume; however, in pediatric cystic lesions, conservative marsupialization and decompression can be used to manage the condition without additional enucleation. The current study's objectives were to present a case series of pediatric dentigerous cysts and discuss the conservative management of these cystic lesions associated with mixed dentition. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of patients diagnosed with cystic lesions between 2016 and 2023 was identified. Data on clinical, radiological, pathological, and odontogenic causes were collected. The marsupialization approach was performed in all cases. Patient demographic information was also examined, and a literature review was carried out to identify comparable cases. Results Sixteen young patients were diagnosed with dentigerous cysts, and this was confirmed by clinical, radiological, and pathological examinations. Females comprised 56.2% of the cases, with the right side predominating (62.5%). Deciduous teeth related to the lesion could be extracted normally in all cases. All associated permanent teeth erupted rapidly after the intervention. Conclusion The marsupialization technique used in the current cases of dentigerous cysts associated with mixed dentition was highly successful, and all permanent impacted teeth erupted without any cystic recurrence.

Oral Healthcare Services Delivered During COVID-19 Lockdown: A Report from Eastern Mediterranean Region

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe oral healthcare services administered during the lockdown in the Eastern Mediterranean region and to investigate the role of socio-professional characteristics of dental practitioners or their self-reported COVID-19 infection. Material and Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to dental practitioners in all healthcare sectors in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Results: There was a total of 335 participants, with the majority being females (N=225, 67.2%) and general practitioners (N=202, 60.3%). Cellulitis was the most common emergency encountered (N=108). The most common urgent procedures were for pulpitis, abscesses, and pericoronitis (N=191, 130, and 95, respectively). Country-specific significant associations were pulpitis in Egypt and Jordan, broken symptomatic teeth in Jordan, and biopsy in Egypt (p<0.05). The Ministry of Health was significantly associated with the management of dental infections, avulsion, and orthodontic emergencies, while university hospitals were significantly associated with advanced restorative procedures (p<0.05). Male practitioners performed significantly more procedures, particularly surgical emergencies (p<0.05). Conclusion: Dental infections were the most common complaints among dental patients during lockdown. Countryand sector-specific dental procedures are detected. Male gender seems to play a determinant role in performing a higher number of procedures, particularly for surgical emergencies (AU).

Phytotherapy in periodontics as an effective and sustainable supplemental treatment: a narrative review.

PURPOSE: Periodontal disease is a chronic condition caused by microbial infection and mediated by the host's immune response. Phytotherapy is a therapeutic approach that utilizes a renewable resource capable of supplying less expensive medicines for the world's growing population. This review aimed to present clinical evidence on the use of complementary medicinal herbs in the treatment of periodontal diseases. METHODS: Different databases were searched using the terms "herbal" and "periodontitis." All included studies were examined with a focus on herbal indications, type, and prescription length. Dentists' therapeutic and prophylactic herbal prescribing habits were also assessed. RESULTS: Various herbs such as turmeric, neem, aloe-vera, pomegranate, catechu, tulsi, cloves, lemon grass, green tea, tea tree oil, peppermint, garlic, pineapple, oak bark, babul, bakul, sage, coriander, moringa, amla, guava, and grape seed extract have been used in the treatment of periodontitis. These herbs have been reported to exhibit a range of therapeutic effects, including anti-inflammatory, antiplaque, antihalitosis, antiresorptive, antioxidant, antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral, and antimicrobial properties. These components can be utilized in various forms such as mouth rinse, gel, oil, toothpaste, aqueous extract, mouthwash, or tooth powder. CONCLUSIONS: Several readily available herbal formulations are now available on the market and have been shown to be effective as supplemental periodontal phytotherapy. However, these should be used under the supervision of a dental professional to ensure optimal benefits and effectiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the understanding of suggested herbal prescription practices among dental professionals.

Long-term adverse events of three COVID-19 vaccines as reported by vaccinated physicians and dentists, a study from Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Assessment of safety of COVID-19 vaccines is an ongoing process. This study aims to explore long-term adverse events reported by physicians and dentists who received at least two COVID-19 vaccine doses. A group of physicians and dentists were invited to complete a validated questionnaire that was composed of items on: socio-demographics, medical history, administered vaccines, and long-term adverse events (LTAE). Data of a total of 498 practitioners were included. Age ranged from 22 to 71 years (mean age= 35.75 ± 11.74) with a female majority (N = 348, 69.9%). The most frequently administered vaccines were Pfizer-BioNtech, Sinopharm and AstraZeneca vaccines. A total of 80 (16.0%) participants reported LTAEs which were mainly fatigue, menstrual disturbances, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, and headache (N = 32, 15, 8, 6, 4, and 4, respectively). There was no statistically significant association between LTAEs and: age, gender, or medical history (P > .05). The collective symptoms of fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, dizziness, and headache were significantly associated with Sinopharm vaccine (P = .04). This was further confirmed by general linear multivariate model analysis. Less than 20% of COVID-19 vaccine recipients may complain of LTAEs that are mostly fatigue-related. It seems that factors such as age, gender, and medical status play a negligible role in development of these AEs. On the other hand, Sinopharm vaccine showed the highest significant association with these AEs followed by AstraZeneca vaccine.

Jaw-related complications in COVID-19 patients; a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to highlight jaw-related complications in COVID-19 manifestations, their etiology, and prevention methods. METHODS: A systematic review of literature was conducted. MEDLINE/PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched for the following keywords: "COVID-19" "Oral manifestations", "Musculoskeletal patients", "Mandible", "Jaw", "Osteonecrosis", "MRONJ", and "dry socket". RESULTS: Only nine articles were included in this review. Jaw-related disorders associated with COVID-19 were dry socket, osteonecrosis, and orofacial pain related to temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD) and giant cell arteritis (GCA). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 potentially predisposes to osteonecrosis due to thrombotic inflammatory phenomena caused by the disease itself or its therapeutic modalities. All jaw osteonecrosis cases reported so far in relation to COVID-19 affected the upper jaw. Orofacial pain in COVID-19 patients was related to TMD and GCA. Clinical evidence-based studies are required to investigate the actual prevalence and possible correlation between COVID-19 and jaw-related disorders.

COVID-19 Infection in Academic Dental Hospital Personnel; A Cross-Sectional Survey in Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Close patient contact is an essential component of clinical dental education, which can expose students and faculty to risk of COVID-19 and its sequelae. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional survey conducted among faculty and clinical students at an academic dental hospital in Al Madinah western Saudi Arabia. An online questionnaire was distributed to collect data on prevalence, risk factors, clinical manifestations, and long-term health and socioeconomic complications of COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: Prevalence of COVID-19 was 19.6% among a total of 316 students and faculty. Participants cited family and friends as the primary source of infection (40.3%). Among cross-infection control practices, they cited failure to practice distancing as the primary reason for infection transmission (61.3%). The disease was symptomatic in 85.5% of infected personnel. Most frequently reported clinical manifestations were: fever, cough, malaise, and diarrhoea (74.1%, 56.5%, 40.3%, 32.3%, respectively). A proportion of 37.1% of infected personnel stated that they had long COVID-19, and 58.3% of infected students reported deteriorated academic achievement. CONCLUSIONS: One in five of clinical dental students and their faculty had COVID-19. Most cases were symptomatic, and a large proportion developed long COVID or adverse socioeconomic consequences. Regardless of the severity of symptoms encountered during the acute stage of COVID-19 infection, all infected dental healthcare personnel should be followed, especially those who report long COVID. Continuous follow-up and assistance for infected students may be warranted to mitigate the potential academic and mental drawbacks caused by the pandemic. Dental schools should adopt clear policies regarding COVID-19 transmission and prevention and should implement them in their infection-control education and training.

Assessing Expectant Mothers' Knowledge and Beliefs about Oral Healthcare During Infancy and Pregnancy: A Cross Sectional Survey in Saudi Arabia

Objective: To evaluate expectant mothers' knowledge and beliefs on oral healthcare of infants. It also aimed at exploring their knowledge on oral health care during pregnancy and the possible relationship between oral health and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey was conducted among expectant mothers attending antenatal clinics in Al Madinah, Saudi Arabia in summer, 2017. Questions collected data on sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample as well as basic knowledge on oral healthcare during pregnancy and infancy. There were also questions on knowledge about adverse pregnancy outcomes that may be associated with poor oral health. Results: A convenient sample of 360 pregnant women participated in the study. A percentage of 79.7% showed a good level of knowledge in oral healthcare of infants while a percentage of 8.9% only showed a good level of knowledge in oral healthcare during pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes. Education level and employment status were significantly associated the good level of knowledge in oral healthcare of infants (p=0.000, and 0.002 respectively). Conclusion: Most of expectant mothers, particularly educated and employed ones, have good knowledge on oral healthcare of infants, however, the majority lacked sufficient knowledge on pregnancy outcomes and oral healthcare during pregnancy.

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods.

BACKGROUND: The term anchorage in orthodontic treatment refers to methods of controlling unwanted tooth movement. This is provided either by anchor sites within the mouth, such as the teeth and the palate, or from outside the mouth (headgear). Recently, new methods of providing anchorage have been developed using orthodontic implants which are surgically inserted into the bone in the mouth. This is termed surgical anchorage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgical anchorage techniques compared to conventional anchorage in the prevention of unwanted tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment by evaluating the mesiodistal movement of upper first molar teeth. A secondary objective was to compare the effects of one type of surgical anchorage with another. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 28 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 October 2013). We handsearched key international orthodontic and dental journals, and searched the trial database ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage in orthodontic patients. Trials comparing two types of surgical anchorage were also included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently and in duplicate extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We contacted study authors to clarify aspects of study design and conduct, and to obtain unreported data. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen new studies were added in this update resulting in a total of 15 studies reporting data from 561 randomised patients. The studies were conducted in Europe, India, China, South Korea and the USA. The age range of patients was commonly restricted to adolescents or young adults, however the participants of two studies were from a much wider age range (12 to 54 years). The distribution of males and females was similar in eight of the studies, with a predominance of female patients in seven studies.Eight studies were assessed to be at high overall risk of bias; six studies at unclear risk of bias; one study at low risk of bias.Ten studies with 407 randomised and 390 analysed patients compared surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage for the primary outcome of mesiodistal movement of upper first molars. We carried out a random-effects model meta-analysis for the seven studies that fully reported this outcome. There was strong evidence of an effect of surgical anchorage on this outcome. Compared with conventional anchorage, surgical anchorage was more effective in the reinforcement of anchorage by 1.68 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.27 mm to -1.09 mm; seven studies, 308 participants analysed) with moderate quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias, one study at low risk of bias). This result should be interpreted with some caution, however, as there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity for this comparison. There was no evidence of a difference in overall duration of treatment between surgical and conventional anchorage (-0.15 years; 95% CI -0.37 years to 0.07 years; three studies, 111 analysed patients) with low quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias and two studies at unclear risk of bias). Information on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and acceptability was limited and inconclusive.When direct comparisons were made between two types of surgical anchorage, there was a lack of evidence to suggest that any one technique was better than another.No included studies reported adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that reinforcement of anchorage is more effective with surgical anchorage than conventional anchorage, and that results from mini-screw implants are particularly promising. While surgical anchorage is not associated with the inherent risks and compliance issues related to extraoral headgear, none of the included studies reported on harms of surgical or conventional anchorage.

Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: When orthodontic treatment is provided with fixed appliances, it is sometimes necessary to move the upper molar teeth backwards (distalise) to create space or help to overcome anchorage requirements. This can be achieved with the use of extraoral or intraoral appliances. The most common appliance is extraoral headgear, which requires considerable patient co-operation. Further, reports of serious injuries have been published. Intraoral appliances have been developed to overcome such shortcomings. The comparative effects of extraoral and intraoral appliances have not been fully evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 December 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 December 2012). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials involving the use of removable or fixed orthodontic appliances intended to distalise upper first molars in children and adolescents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies, reporting data from 354 participants, were included in this review, the majority of which were carried out in a university dental hospital setting. The studies were published between 2005 and 2011 and were conducted in Europe and in Brazil. The age range of participants was from nine to 15 years, with an even distribution of males and females in seven of the studies, and a slight predominance of female patients in three of the studies. The quality of the studies was generally poor; seven studies were at an overall high risk of bias, three studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged no study to be at low risk of bias.We carried out random-effects meta-analyses as appropriate for the primary clinical outcomes of movement of upper first molars (mm), and loss of anterior anchorage, where there were sufficient data reported in the primary studies. Four studies, involving 159 participants, compared a distalising appliance to an untreated control. Meta-analyses were not undertaken for all primary outcomes due to incomplete reporting of all summary statistics, expected outcomes, and differences between the types of appliances. The degree and direction of molar movement and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance. Four studies, involving 150 participants, compared a distalising appliance versus headgear. The mean molar movement for intraoral distalising appliances was -2.20 mm and -1.04 mm for headgear. There was a statistically significant difference in mean distal molar movement (mean difference (MD) -1.45 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to -0.15) favouring intraoral appliances compared to headgear (four studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 150 participants analysed). However, a statistically significant difference in mean mesial upper incisor movement (MD 1.82 mm; 95% CI 1.39 to 2.24) and overjet (fixed-effect: MD 1.64 mm; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.02; two studies, unclear risk of bias, 70 participants analysed) favoured headgear, i.e. there was less loss of anterior anchorage with headgear. We reported direct comparisons of intraoral appliances narratively due to the variation in interventions (three studies, high or unclear risk of bias, 93 participants randomised). All appliances were reported to provide some degree of distal movement, and loss of anterior anchorage varied with the type of appliance.No included studies reported on the incidence of adverse effects (harm, injury), number of attendances or rate of non-compliance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that intraoral appliances are more effective than headgear in distalising upper first molars. However, this effect is counteracted by loss of anterior anchorage, which was not found to occur with headgear when compared with intraoral distalising appliance in a small number of studies. The number of trials assessing the effects of orthodontic treatment for distilisation is low, and the current evidence is of low or very low quality.