Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has termed as a controllable pandemic, and the entire world has come to a standstill trying to mitigate the disease with health systems. Health care providers, around the globe, are fighting day and night. Currently, rapid testing is taking place with the help of nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal swab, bronchoalveolar lavage, sputum, urine, and blood. All these approaches are invasive or embarrassing to the infected person. It is observed that salivary glands are hosting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) because of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and the detection of high viral loads in the saliva and is playing a crucial role in virus transmission, especially from individuals showing absolutely no symptoms. Saliva is proving to be a promising noninvasive sample specimen for the diagnosis of COVID-19, thus helping to monitor the infection and prevent it from further spreading by prompt isolation.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has taken the world by storm, with cases continuously increasing by the hour and with a shortage of information regarding the virus available to the general public. Despite the availability of trusted online sources, there are still misconceptions relating to the virus floating around. This study aimed to find out the level of misconceptions among healthcare professionals (HCPs) worldwide about the ensuing COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: A descriptive cross sectional study was conducted through a global online survey. The self-administered questionnaire was designed and registered at an online website (Kwiksurveys). A total of 652 participants from 35 different countries across the world responded. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 23. Socio-demographic and discipline characteristics were compared with the help of the chi-square test and univariate and multivariate logistic regression to find significant relationships. Results: Among all HCPs, general physicians (61.2%) were the most common respondents. The responses from females (63.3%) almost doubled those of men, and nearly half of the participants were working in private institutes (49.2%). Additionally, the major source of information used by HCPs about COVID-19 was social media (55.4%). Regarding misconception assessment, 71.6% of participants had correct concepts regarding COVID-19. However, 28.4% had incorrect information. Female HCPs were 1.49 times more likely to have correct concepts compared to males (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.04-2.14). Conclusions: The majority of the HCPs were keeping themselves up-to-date with current information concerning the knowledge, prevention, and hygiene practices of COVID-19 infection. However, some misconceptions are deeply rooted in the mindsets of HCPs worldwide and need to be addressed by the continuous professional development of HCPs. The availability of reliable sources of information on the pandemic should be encouraged, with adequate explanations also available to the general public in simple terms.

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically analyze and summarize studies reporting association of salivary immunoglobulin A (IgA) levels as a biomarker for dental caries in Down syndrome (DS) patients. Using the keywords salivary [All Fields] AND IgA [All Fields] AND (“down syndrome” [MeSH Terms] OR (“down”[All Fields] AND “syndrome” [All Fields]) OR “down syndrome” [All Fields]), an electronic search was conducted via PubMed and Scopus databases by two authors, H. H. and Z. K. independently. Retrieved studies were screened against the predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria. To estimate the risk of bias, quality assessment of included studies was carried using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale for observational studies. Primary search resulted in 10 articles from PubMed and 13 articles from Scopus. Ten studies fulfilled the defined selection criteria and evaluated the salivary IgA (sIgA) level in DS patients with dental caries. Five articles were further analyzed in a quantitative synthesis presented in the meta-analysis. Due to a modified lifestyle and compromised oral hygiene in DS patients, understandably, it is still postulated in the literature that the presence of sIgA can have a protective effect on the occurrence of dental caries as compared with healthy counterparts. As indicated by the present meta-analysis, no conclusions can be drawn as to definitively label sIgA as a biomarker for dental caries. Further, well-designed longitudinal clinical studies and translational research are therefore required before the benchmarking of sIgA as a useful biomarker for dental caries in DS patients with preferable molecular insights.