Impact of a dental care intervention on the hospital mortality of critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units: A quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the impact of providing dental care to critically ill patients on their risk of death and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: A quasi-experimental study was conducted in 2 intensive care units (ICU) from 2016 to 2019. The intervention consisted of implementing routine dental care, focusing on oral hygiene and periodontal treatment, at least 3 times a week, for patients admitted to the study units. In the pre-intervention period, routine oral hygiene was provided by the ICU nursing staff. The primary and secondary study outcomes were mortality, evaluated at the end of the ICU stay, and VAP incidence density, respectively. Data were analyzed using the ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average) time series model in R software. RESULTS: During the intervention period, 5,147 dental procedures were performed among 355 patients. The time series showed that ICU mortality was 36.11%, 32.71%, and 32.30% within the 3 years before the intervention, and 28.71% during the intervention period (P = .015). VAP incidence density did not significantly change during the study period (P = .716). CONCLUSION: A dental care intervention focused on oral hygiene and periodontal treatment regularly provided by dentists to critically ill patients may decrease their risk of dying in the ICU. Randomized clinical trials should be performed to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: WHO-affiliated Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry. RBR-4jmz36. Registered 7 October 2018, before first patient enrollment.

Is it necessary to have a dentist within an intensive care unit team? Report of a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of dental treatment in improving oral health in critical patients. METHODS: This randomised clinical trial was conducted in a general intensive care unit (ICU) at a tertiary care public facility from 1 January 2011 to 8 August 2013. Data from 254 adult patients staying in the ICU for 48 hours or more were analysed. The experimental group (n = 127) had access to dental treatment provided by a dentist four to five times a week, in addition to routine oral hygiene, whereas the control group (n = 127) had access only to routine oral hygiene, including topical application of chlorhexidine, provided by the ICU nursing staff. The baseline oral health status of the enrolled patients was poor and included edentulism, caries, gingivitis, periodontitis and residual roots. Dental treatment consisted of toothbrushing, tongue scraping, removal of calculus, scaling and root planing, caries restoration and tooth extraction. RESULTS: The Oral Hygiene Index Simplified (OHI-S) and Gingival Index (GI) scores decreased in the experimental group but did not change significantly in the control group during the ICU stay. Dental treatment prevented most of the episodes of respiratory tract infections, as previously reported. No severe adverse events from the dental treatment were observed. CONCLUSION: From an interprofessional perspective, our results support the idea of including dentists in the ICU team to improve oral health in critical patients and effectively prevent respiratory tract infections, in addition to the improvement achievable by applying chlorhexidine alone.

Effectiveness of oral rinse with chlorhexidine in preventing nosocomial respiratory tract infections among intensive care unit patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the oral application of a 0.12% solution of chlorhexidine for prevention of respiratory tract infections among intensive care unit (ICU) patients. DESIGN: The study design was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: The study was performed in an ICU in a tertiary care hospital at a public university. PATIENTS. Study participants comprised 194 patients admitted to the ICU with a prospective length of stay greater than 48 hours, randomized into 2 groups: those who received chlorhexidine (n = 98) and those who received a placebo (n = 96). INTERVENTION: Oral rinses with chlorhexidine or a placebo were performed 3 times a day throughout the duration of the patient's stay in the ICU. Clinical data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Both groups displayed similar baseline clinical features. The overall incidence of respiratory tract infections (RR, 1.0 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.60]) and the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia per 1,000 ventilator-days were similar in both experimental and control groups (22.6 vs 22.3; P = .95). Respiratory tract infection-free survival time (7.8 vs 6.9 days; P = .61), duration of mechanical ventilation (11.1 vs 11.0 days; P = .61), and length of stay (9.7 vs 10.4 days; P = .67) did not differ between the chlorhexidine and placebo groups. However, patients in the chlorhexidine group exhibited a larger interval between ICU admission and onset of the first respiratory tract infection (11.3 vs 7.6 days; P = .05). The chances of surviving the ICU stay were similar (RR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.72-1.63]). CONCLUSION: Oral application of a 0.12% solution of chlorhexidine does not prevent respiratory tract infections among ICU patients, although it may retard their onset.

Infection control practices among a cohort of Brazilian dentists.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate infection control practices among dentists in private and public practice. DESIGN: Survey and cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Sertãozinho city, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: All dentists who were currently working at the study city, and agreed to participate, resulting in a study population of 135 dentists. METHODS: Participants were personally interviewed and variables were submitted to chi2 or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Hand washing before and after each patient was reported by 86.7% of dentists, but private practitioners used liquid soap and paper towels more often than their public colleagues (p < 0.001). Most of the study population (97.8%) used gloves routinely during clinical sessions, but 8.2% reused them. Dry-heat was the main method employed for sterilisation of heat-stable devices by 80.0% of dentists, but adequate temperature and time of exposure was accomplished by only 32.1% of public and 70.0% of private professionals (p < 0.001). Heat-sensitive devices were disinfected with an adequate substance by 60.0% of both affiliation dentists (p = 0.908). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large gap between infection control recommendations and practices observed among the study population, and the situation is worse in public services. To reverse that situation, infection control issues must be openly debated by professional associations, dental schools and health authorities.

Occupational exposure to biological fluids among a cohort of Brazilian dentists.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the epidemiology of percutaneous occupational exposure to biologic fluids and the level of compliance with some recommendations contained in the 'Standard Precautions' among dentists. SETTING: Sertãozinho city, Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: All dentists who were currently working in public or private offices in the study city, and who agreed to participate, resulting in a study population of 135 dentists. METHODS: All participants were personally interviewed from August 2001 to April 2002. RESULTS: Of the dentists interviewed, 31.1% reported accidents, with a mean incidence of 2.02 accidents/professional/year; 90.0% recapped needles after using them, while 8.1% re-used gloves. Injuries involved the hands and the item most frequently mentioned was a needle. Inadequate procedures were observed regarding the disposal of sharp devices and hand hygiene. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists evaluated do not properly obey the norms for infection control during their clinical activities, with consequent risks for their own and their patients' health. Measures must be adopted by class institutions, universities, public agencies, and especially by these professionals in order to reverse this situation.