Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34831551

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Having in mind the importance of providing continuous pediatric dental services during the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that children have similar viral loads to adults, the potential to spread the virus to others, and with variable clinical presentation of COVID-19 infection, this study aimed to analyze the impact of COVID-19 outbreak on pediatric dentistry service provision, risks, and preventive measures before and during dental treatment. METHOD: Structured and closed epidemiological cross-sectional survey involved seven Southeastern European countries. The questionnaire was developed using the modified Delphi method, pretested, and tested in North Italy during April 2020. The sample consisted of licensed dental professionals reached via national dental chambers and social media using the best strategies according to the national setting. RESULTS: A total of 3227 dentists participated in the survey, and we included 643 specialists in this study-among them, 164 were pediatric dentists. Most pediatric dentists worked in the public sector (61.0%) and provided emergency (64.6%) and routine dental treatment (18.3%) during the outbreak. One-third of pediatric dentists were COVID-19 tested, statistically significantly more than other specialties, and 3.0% tested COVID-19 positive. In addition, significantly more pediatric dentists (13.4%) reported the presence of at least one symptom related to COVID-19 compared to other specialists (6.1%). None of the pediatric dentists reported PPE shortage. However, 26.2% of all specialists stated that they lacked clear step by step professional guidance in a national language. Similarly, in both groups, around 10% of specialists attended education on coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that most pediatric dentists provided dental treatment during lockdown in their countries in public health centers and that they will continue to work during pandemic, our results suggest that pediatric dentists might be at higher risk of COVID-19 infection. Further research should focus on finding better ways to promote and adapt preventive, protective measures and PPE in the pediatric dental setting to be behaviorally acceptable. Moreover, additional efforts should be invested in dental education regarding COVID-19 in the mother tongue.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Equipo de Protección Personal , Adulto , Niño , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Estudios Transversales , Odontólogos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
2.
Quintessence Int ; 38(10): E572-6, 2007.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18197315

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To clinically evaluate the jet injection Injex (Rösch AG Medizintechnik) using 2 different anesthetic solutions, and to compare the jet injection and the standard needle injection techniques. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Of the 32 patients in the study, 10 received mepivacaine 3% anesthetic solution by means of the jet injection technique, while the remaining 22 patients received lidocaine 2% with epinephrine 1:80,000 by the same method. The 14 patients in whom pulp anesthesia was achieved were selected for an additional evaluation of the pulp reaction using standard needle injection anesthesia. The differences between the 2 compounds with Injex were statistically evaluated by means of independent-samples t test analysis. The differences between subgroups receiving both jet injection and needle injection anesthesia were evaluated by means of paired t test analysis. RESULTS: The administration of mepivacaine 3% using Injex did not achieve pulp anesthesia in any of the 10 patients, although the soft tissue anesthesia was successful. The administration of lidocaine with epinephrine using Injex resulted in pulp anesthesia in only 14 patients; soft tissue anesthesia was observed in all patients of this group. There was no statistically significant difference between Injex and the needle injection technique in onset of anesthesia. However, the duration of anesthesia was significantly longer for the needle infiltration group than for the Injex injection group. CONCLUSION: The anesthetic solution should be combined with a vasoconstriction agent when the Injex technique is implemented.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia Dental/métodos , Anestesia Local/métodos , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Pulpa Dental/efectos de los fármacos , Periodo de Recuperación de la Anestesia , Anestesia Dental/instrumentación , Anestesia Local/instrumentación , Método Doble Ciego , Epinefrina/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Inyecciones a Chorro , Lidocaína/administración & dosificación , Mepivacaína/administración & dosificación , Mucosa Bucal/efectos de los fármacos , Agujas , Vasoconstrictores/administración & dosificación
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA