RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: A dental loupe is a tool used by many dentists and dental students to improve visual field and performance. This study aims to assess the practices and attitudes about dental magnification loupes and their relationship to musculoskeletal disorders. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 400 dental students and dentists in four dental colleges in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The mean age was 28.35 years (SD = 8.50), and 56% of the participants were male. Also, 70.75% were students or interns, while 29.25% were dentists. Data gathering was conducted using a questionnaire that was composed of four sections: demographic, magnification devices usage, attitude toward dental loupes, and the Nordic questionnaire to assess musculoskeletal disorders. RESULTS: A total of 66% of participants had used dental magnification tools before, but only 12.25% were using dental loupes at the time of the study. The main reported advantages of dental loupes were comfort in vision (59.25%) and improved work accuracy (53%), while the main disadvantage was difficulty in visual measurement (28.5%). A total of 73.25% reported that price was the main barrier to the use of dental loupes. Lower back (63.5%), neck (65.25%), and shoulder (46.25%) pain were the most frequently reported areas of discomfort. There was a significant relationship (<0.05) between the use of dental loupes and lowered levels of reported discomfort in the lower back, neck, shoulders, elbows, upper back, and feet. CONCLUSION: There are few dental professionals who use dental loupes in Saudi Arabia. There was a significant relationship between dental loupes use and reduction of musculoskeletal disorders among dental students and dentists.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) has prompted a need for mass testing to identify patients with viral infection. The high demand has created a global bottleneck in testing capacity, which prompted us to modify available resources to extract viral RNA and perform reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) to detect SARS-COV-2. OBJECTIVES: Report on the use of a DNA extraction kit, after modifications, to extract viral RNA that could then be detected using an FDA-approved SARS-COV-2 RT-qPCR assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Initially, automated RNA extraction was performed using a modified DNA kit on samples from control subjects, a bacteriophage, and an RNA virus. We then verified the automated extraction using the modified kit to detect in-lab propagated SARSCOV-2 titrations using an FDA approved commercial kit (S, N, and ORF1b genes) and an in-house primer-probe based assay (E, RdRp2 and RdRp4 genes). RESULTS: Automated RNA extraction on serial dilutions SARS-COV-2 achieved successful one-step RT-qPCR detection down to 60 copies using the commercial kit assay and less than 30 copies using the in-house primer-probe assay. Moreover, RT-qPCR detection was successful after automated RNA extraction using this modified protocol on 12 patient samples of SARS-COV-2 collected by nasopharyngeal swabs and stored in viral transport media. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the capacity of a modified DNA extraction kit for automated viral RNA extraction and detection using a platform that is suitable for mass testing. LIMITATIONS: Small patient sample size. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.