ArticleBMC oral health2025
Sharps injuries in a dental specialty hospital: retrospective analysis of occupational risks, 2020-2024.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Needlestick and sharps Injuries among dental practitioners: a cross-sectional study of prevalence, risk factors, and postexposure management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOccupational sharps injuries (OSI) remain a critical occupational health risk for healthcare workers, particularly in dental specialty settings where the use of fine instruments and frequent blood exposure heighten vulnerability. However, systematic data on high-risk populations, procedural factors, and pathogen distribution in dental specialty hospitals remain scarce. This study investigates the incidence, risk factors, and bloodborne infection profiles of sharps injuries in a tertiary dental hospital.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 170 OSI cases reported between January 2020 and December 2024 at a tertiary dental hospital in China. Data were extracted from paper-based registries and electronic adverse-event reporting systems, encompassing demographics, injury details, exposure sources, and pathogen profiles. Exclusion criteria included non-clinical injuries and incomplete records. Statistical analyses (SPSS 20.0) involved frequency calculations, chi-square tests, and Fisher's exact tests (significance: P < 0.05).
resultsA total of 170 OSI were reported between 2020 and 2024, with a annual incidence densities ranging from 3.09 to 5.15 per 100 person-years. Nurses (58.8%) and female workers (84.1%) constituted the majority of cases, while staff with ≤ 5 years of experience accounted for 64.7% of exposures. Bloodborne exposures dominated (76.5%), primarily caused by syringe needles (45.9%) and dental burs (9.4%). High-risk procedures included post-treatment instrument sorting (47.1%) and intraoperative handling (38.2%). Hepatitis B (9.2%) and syphilis (3.1%) were the most identified pathogens, though 63.85% of cases had unknown pathogen status. Dentists exhibited significantly higher hepatitis B exposure rates than nurses (13.9% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.04).
conclusionThis study highlights the urgent need for targeted interventions in dental settings, including enhanced training for nurses and early-career staff, optimized instrument-handling protocols, and mandatory pathogen screening for high-risk patients. These findings provide actionable insights to mitigate OSI risks and reduce bloodborne infection burdens in dental specialty hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.