Recent data indicates limited awareness and compliance on infection prevention procedures by dental offices and by dental laboratories. Guidelines for infection prevention in dentistry have been published by Centres for Disease Control and Prevention since 2003; the section “IX-Special consideration” includes a subsection concerning the prevention in dental laboratories, but it has not been modernised in later versions to fit the needs of traditional and computer-aided technology. Traditional techniques required disinfecting items (impression, chewing waxes, and appliances) with well-suited products, which are also chosen for limiting impression changes or appliance deterioration. Effective procedures are available with difficulties. Some of these contain irritant or non-eco-friendly disinfectants. The transport of impression, to dental laboratories, is often delayed with limited precautions for limiting cross-infection. Gypsum casts are frequently contaminated mainly by bacteria and their antibiotic-resistant strains and even stored for long periods during dental implant supported restoration and orthodontic therapy, becoming a hidden source of infection. Nowadays, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology seems to be an interesting way to promote both business and safety, being more comfortable for patients and more accurate than traditional technology. A further advantage is easier infection prevention since, for the most part, mainly digital impression and casts are not a source of cross-infection and the transport of contaminated items is reduced and limited to try-in stages. Nevertheless, a peculiar feature is that a digital electronic file is of course unalterable, but may be ruined by a computer virus. Additionally, the reconditioning of scanner tips is determinant for the optical characteristics and long term use of the scanner, but information for its reconditioning from producers is often limited. This study focuses on some critical points including (a) insufficient guidelines, (b) choice of proper procedure for scanner reconditioning, and (c) data protection in relation to patient privacy.

Context: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently published its "Summary of Infection Prevention Practices in Dental Settings: Basic Expectations for Safe Care", but information concerning compliance, occupational hazards, and specific recommendations for orthodontic facilities is less widely available. Evidence Acquisition: We searched electronic English articles published in PubMed and Google Scholar databases (2010-May 2016) using various combinations of the key indexing terms. Results: 95 articles were selected for comprehensive reading according to the inclusion criteria. Problems and difficulties for orthodontic offices in applying the recommendations have been divided into nine focus areas concerning the quality of supplies, the procedures necessary to adhere to the standard precautions of hand hygiene, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette, sharps safety, orthodontic instrument reconditioning, cleaning and disinfecting clinical contact surfaces and dental unit water lines, and impression disinfection. Conclusions: On the basis of our experience in a university department of orthodontics and private orthodontic offices, we believe that innovative thinking based on better knowledge, education and training, ergonomics, and task-specific, evidence-based guidelines and resources are required to improve compliance with infection control recommendations.

Using molecular biological methods and retrospective investigations, some outbreaks in dental settings have been proven to be caused by mainly blood-borne viruses and water-borne bacteria. Nowadays, drug-resistant bacteria seem further hazards taking into account the worldwide overuse of antibiotics in dentistry, the limited awareness on infection prevention guidelines, and the lapses and errors during infection prevention (reported in more detail in Part 2). We chose MRSA and VRE as markers since they are considered prioritized bacteria according antibiotic resistance threats. Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections inside of dental setting are relevant, and we argue about some hazards in dentistry, including dedicated surgeries. MRSA has a key role for its colonization in patients and dental workers, presence on gloves, resistance (days-months on dry inanimate surfaces), the contamination of different clinical contact surfaces in dental settings, the ability of some strains to produce biofilm, and finally its estimated low infective dose. For better dental patient and healthcare personnel safety, we need evidence-based guidelines to improve education and training initiatives in surgery.

We showed that antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections inside of dental settings are relevant. Here, we have focused on the limited awareness on infection prevention guidelines, and the lapses and errors during infection prevention, which sustain the evidence of possible reservoirs of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in humans (dental staff and patients) and on dental items or in the environment. We chose Staphylococci and Enterobacteriaceae as markers since they are considered as prioritized bacteria according to antibiotic resistance pressure, and the data are available on their virulence factors and for dental settings. For better dental patient and healthcare personnel safety, we need to improve knowledge on bioburden and biofouling, based also on molecular biological methods, and education and training initiatives to limit the hazards in surgical dental settings and to sustain accreditation survey.

No abstract

The purpose of this commentary is to update the evidence reported in our previous review on the advantages and limitations of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology in the promotion of dental business, as well as to guarantee patient and occupational safety. The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented focus on infection prevention; however, waves of COVID-19 follow one another, asymptomatic cases are nearly impossible to identify by triage in a dental setting, and the effectiveness of long-lasting immune protection through vaccination remains largely unknown. Different national laws and international guidelines (mainly USA-CDC, ECDC) have often brought about dissimilar awareness and operational choices, and in general, there has been very limited attention to this technology. Here, we discuss its advantages and limitations in light of: (a) presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the oral cavity, saliva, and dental biofilm and activation of dormant microbial infections; (b) the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosol and fomite contamination; (c) the detection of various oral manifestations of COVID-19; (d) specific information for the reprocessing of the scanner tip and the ward from the manufacturers.

No abstract

Congenital heart disease is defined as abnormality in the cardiovascular structure or function that is present at birth and it is the most common cause of congenital anomalies. Approximately 90% of more than 1,000,000 children born per year with congenital heart disease worldwide receive suboptimal care or have no access to care at all. Furthermore, the mortality is likely underreported in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. Mission Bambini Foundation is an Italian NGO founded in 2000, aiming at “helping and supporting children who are poor, sick, without education or physically and morally abused” in Italy and worldwide. In 20 years, through 1.700 projects, 1.4 million children have been supported in 75 Countries. In 2005, Mission Bambini launched the “Children's Heart Program,” based on long-term partnerships and on medical/surgical volunteering, in order to provide multidisciplinary education and training and technical support.