Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34196051›Full record

ReviewClinical oral implants research2021

Dental care during COVID-19 pandemic: Follow-up survey of experts' opinion.

Giulia Brunello, Katarzyna Gurzawska-Comis, Kathrin Becker, Jürgen Becker, Stefano Sivolella, Frank Schwarz, Björn Klinge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical oral implants research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Giulia BrunelloDepartment of Oral Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1436-0085
Katarzyna Gurzawska-ComisDepartment of Oral Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3424-5968
Kathrin BeckerDepartment of Orthodontics, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1936-4683
Jürgen BeckerDepartment of Oral Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-344X
Stefano SivolellaDepartment of Neurosciences, Dentistry Section, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1916-1640
Frank SchwarzDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5515-227X
Björn KlingeFaculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2100-2446

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of the present survey is to give an update of European experts' opinion on infection control and prevention in dentistry during second wave of pandemic. The secondary aim was to analyze how experts' opinion changed in the light of the new scientific evidence since the first wave. MATERIAL &

methodsAn anonymous online 14-item questionnaire was sent to a total of 27 leading academic experts in Oral (and Maxillofacial) Surgery from different European countries, who had completed a previous survey in April-May 2020. The questionnaire covered the topics of dental setting safety, personal protective equipment (PPE), and patient-related measures to minimize transmission risk. Data collection took place in November-February 2020/21.

results26 experts participated in the follow-up survey. The overall transmission risk in dental settings was scored significantly lower compared to the initial survey (p < .05), though the risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) was still considered to be high. Maximum PPE was less frequently recommended for non-AGP (p < .05), whereas the majority of experts still recommended FFP2/FFP3 masks (80.8%), face shields or goggles (88.5%), gowns (61.5%), and caps (57.7%) for AGP. Most of the experts also found mouth rinse relevant (73.1%) and reported to be using it prior to treatment (76.9%). No uniform opinion was found regarding the relevance of COVID-19 testing of staff and patients.

conclusionWith the continuation of dental care provision, transmission risk has been scored lower compared to the first wave of pandemic. However, high risk is still assumed for AGP, and maximum PPE remained advised for the respective treatments.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCOVID-19 TestingDental CareFollow-Up StudiesHumansSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19 pandemicexpert opinioninfection control and preventionpersonal protective equipmentsurveys and questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID34196051
PMCPMC8444799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.