Introduction This scoping review aimed to determine the frequency of different teaching methodologies, tools and platforms applied in dental education during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Materials and Methods The search strategy was performed in six databases and grey literature. A total of 28 questionnaire‐based studies were included, without language or time restriction, from 20 different countries. Results Six thousand five hundred sixty‐five participants were assessed: 84% undergraduates, 9% of faculty members, 5% of postgraduate students/residents/trainees and 2% of dental schools/residency programs. The pooled eligible data for teaching methodologies were 62% of a combination of different methods (95% CI, 35.5% to 82.3%), 23% a combination of synchronous and asynchronous formats (95% CI, 8.2% to 50.2%) and 15% for only synchronous lectures (95% CI, 4.3% to 42.2%). The reported tools were laptops (40%), smartphones (40%), tablets (40%), desktops (20%), Blackboard (20%), Respondus Lockdown Browser (20%), eProctor (20%) and PowerPoint (20%). The most used platforms were Zoom (70.6%), Microsoft Teams (23.5%) and Cisco Webex (23.5%). A better time management (17.9%; 95% CI, 7.9% to 35.6%) and the possibility of revision with additional notes (14.3%; 95% CI, 5.7% to 31.5%) was the greatest advantages related to dental e‐learning, while the increased levels of anxiety/stress/burnout/exhaustion (35.7%; 95% CI, 21% to 54.2%) and internet connection problems (35.7%; 95% CI, 21% to 54.2%) was the most cited disadvantages. Conclusion This scoping review showed promising blended teaching methodologies, tools and platforms in the dental education profile. The evidence suggests that e‐learning technologies can widely contribute to dental education during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Therefore, this study makes a major contribution to research by assessing the impact of COVID restrictions on dental education and further studies are needed to identify how restrictions in dental practice will affect future professionals.

No abstract

O tabagismo é uma doença crônica associada à dependência de nicotina. Nos últimos anos, uma variedade de produtos alternativos à nicotina surgiu, destacando-se os Dispositivos Eletrônicos para Fumar (DEF), conhecidos como cigarros eletrônicos ou e-cigarro, que podem conter ou não nicotina. É fato que o consumo dos DEFs vem aumentando, constantemente, provavelmente pela maior aceitação social, a qual está relacionada à aparência contemporânea, à variedade de sabores, odores agradáveis e designs disponíveis no mercado. No entanto, não há evidências suficientes de que DEFs sejam menos prejudiciais à saúde do que o tabaco, a longo prazo. Destaca-se ainda que os DEFs podem servir como meio de entrada para o tabagismo para indivíduos não fumantes, visto que perpetuam o comportamento repetitivo e automático envolto no ato de fumar. Assim, esse artigo de reflexão sobre o uso dos DEFs na atualidade tem como objetivos esclarecer o que são os DEFs, discutir possíveis benefícios ou prejuízos relacionados ao uso dos DEFs e debater sobre a regulamentação e a comercialização destes dispositivos no Brasil.

No abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) of preclinical studies are marked with poor methodological quality. In vitro studies lack assessment tools to improve the quality of preclinical research. This methodological study aimed to identify, collect, and analyze SRs based on cell culture studies to highlight the current appraisal tools utilized to support the development of a validated critical appraisal tool for cell culture in vitro research. SRs, scoping reviews, and meta‐analyses that included cell culture studies and used any type of critical appraisal tool were included. Electronic search, study selection, data collection and methodological quality (MQ) assessment tool were realized. Further, statistical analyses regarding possible associations and correlations between MQ and collected data were performed. After the screening process, 82 studies remained for subsequent analysis. A total of 32 different appraisal tools were identified. Approximately 60% of studies adopted pre‐structured tools not designed for cell culture studies. The most frequent instruments were SYRCLE (n = 14), OHAT (n = 9), Cochrane Collaboration's tool (n = 7), GRADE (n = 6), CONSORT (n = 5), and ToxRTool (n = 5). The studies were divided into subgroups to perform statistical analyses. A significant association (OR = 5.00, 95% CI = 1.54–16.20, p = 0.008) was found between low MQ and chronic degenerative disorders as topic of SR. Several challenges in collecting information from the included studies led to some modifications related to the previously registered protocol. These results may serve as a basis for further development of a critical appraisal tool for cell culture studies capable of capturing all the essential factors related to preclinical research, therefore enhancing the practice of evidence‐based.

No abstract