Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here:

Background COVID-19 is a global pandemic affecting all aspects of life in all countries. We assessed COVID-19 knowledge and associated factors among dental academics in 26 countries. Methods We invited dental academics to participate in a cross-sectional, multi-country, online survey from March to April 2020. The survey collected data on knowledge of COVID-19 regarding the mode of transmission, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, protection, and dental treatment precautions as well as participants’ background variables. Multilevel linear models were used to assess the association between dental academics’ knowledge of COVID-19 and individual level (personal and professional) and country-level (number of COVID-19 cases/ million population) factors accounting for random variation among countries. Results Two thousand forty-five academics participated in the survey (response rate 14.3%, with 54.7% female and 67% younger than 46 years of age). The mean (SD) knowledge percent score was 73.2 (11.2) %, and the score of knowledge of symptoms was significantly lower than the score of knowledge of diagnostic methods (53.1 and 85.4%, P <  0.0001). Knowledge score was significantly higher among those living with a partner/spouse than among those living alone (regression coefficient (B) = 0.48); higher among those with PhD degrees than among those with Bachelor of Dental Science degrees (B = 0.48); higher among those seeing 21 to 30 patients daily than among those seeing no patients (B = 0.65); and higher among those from countries with a higher number of COVID-19 cases/million population (B = 0.0007). Conclusions Dental academics had poorer knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms than of COVID-19 diagnostic methods. Living arrangements, academic degrees, patient load, and magnitude of the epidemic in the country were associated with COVD-19 knowledge among dental academics. Training of dental academics on COVID-19 can be designed using these findings to recruit those with the greatest need.

Iatrogenic origin of neurosensory dysfunction is a distressing sequel to the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars, which is frequently overlooked. According to various surveys, the rate of neurologic complications related to the surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars varies between 0.5% and 1% for permanent damage and 5% and 7% involving temporary damage. Prevention always stands as the best modality to avoid patient's discomfort and lawsuits by sophisticated consumerism.Preoperative assessment of the topographic relationship of the impacted mandibular third molar to the inferior alveolar canal has been performed by different imaging modalities. However, none of the imaging techniques give cent percent information. The best available imaging modality in time and resources should be adopted by the surgeon to avoid complications and lawsuits. Orthopantomography has often been cited as the imaging modality of choice before surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar. However, it depicts a two-dimensional view of an intricate three-dimensional anatomic relationship and also fails to accurately project the buccolingual relation between the tooth and the inferior alveolar canal. The current study was designed to evaluate the potential advantages of spiral computed tomography and compare its efficacy as a presurgical planning tool with orthopantomography in patients with impacted mandibular third molars showing proximity to the inferior alveolar canal on an orthopantomogram.

No abstract

IntroductionAbdominal injuries are responsible for 10% of the mortalities due to trauma. Delays in early diagnosis or misdiagnoses are two major reasons for the mortality and morbidity associated with abdominal trauma. The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency of visceral injuries in patients with abdominal trauma and compare the frequency of visceral injuries in patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study from May 2016 to May 2018 of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center in Karachi, Pakistan. Patients were 12 to 65 years old and presented within 24 hours of abdominal trauma. We recorded the type of abdominal visceral injuries, such as liver, spleen, intestine, stomach, mesentery, and pancreas.ResultsThe mean patient age was 31 ±13 years. Penetrating trauma was found in most patients (n=72, 51%). Liver injuries were found in 37 patients (26.4%), spleen injuries in 29 patient (20.7%), stomach injuries in eight patients (5.7%), intestine injuries in 67 patients (47.9%), mesentery injuries in 21 patients (15%), and pancreas injuries in nine patients (6.4%). The type of abdominal trauma was found significantly associated with liver injury (p-value 0.021), and intestine injury (p-value <0.001).ConclusionPenetrating trauma (51.4%) was more common than blunt trauma (48.5%), and intestines are the most commonly affected by penetrating and blunt trauma injuries (70.1% and 47.8%, respectively). The liver is the most commonly affected (42.85%) in blunt trauma injuries, followed by the spleen (28.5%). The appropriate authorities should consider this information when instituting public health and safety initiatives.

The ongoing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the working environment, occupation, and living style of billions of people around the world. The severest impact of the coronavirus is on migrant communities; hence, it is relevant to assess the economic impact and mental status of the Indian migrants. This study is quantitative in nature and based on a sample survey of 180 migrant workers. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, dependent sample t-test, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient were utilized to analyze the surveyed data. The findings of the study reveal, through the working experience of the migrants, that new international migration has reduced due to lockdown and international travel restrictions. It was also reported that the majority of the migrants worked less than the normal working hours during the lockdown, causing a reduction of salary and remittances. Chi-square test confirms that the perceptions of migrants towards the COVID-19 management by the government were significantly different in opinion by different occupation/profession. Majority of the sampled migrants reported the problem of nervousness, anxiety, and depression; however, they were also hopeful about the future. The psychological problem was severe for the migrants above the age of 40, not educated, and with a higher number of family members. Subsequently, the policy implications from the findings of the research can draw attention of the policy makers towards protective measures which need to be implemented to support migrants during the ongoing pandemic. The government should take some necessary steps, such as a financial benefit scheme, to overcome the problems in the reduction of migrant earnings and remittances. The government should not focus only on vaccination and physical fitness of the migrants but also need to find out the cure of the psychological impact arising during the pandemic.

Dental academic institutions are affected by COVID-19. We assessed the perceived COVID-19 preparedness of these institutions and the characteristics of institutions with greater perceived preparedness. An international cross-sectional survey of dental academics was conducted from March to August 2020 to assess academics’ and institutional attributes, perceived preparedness, and availability of infection prevention and control (IPC) equipment. Principal component analysis (PCA) identified perceived preparedness components. Multilevel linear regression analysis assessed the association between perceived preparedness and fixed effect factors (academics’ and institutions’ attributes) with countries as random effect variable. Of the 1820 dental academics from 28 countries, 78.4% worked in public institutions and 75.2% reported temporary closure. PCA showed five components: clinic apparel, measures before and after patient care, institutional policies, and availability of IPC equipment. Significantly less perceived preparedness was reported in lower-middle income (LMICs) (B = −1.31, p = 0.006) and upper-middle income (UMICs) (B = −0.98, p = 0.02) countries than in high-income countries (HICs), in teaching only (B = −0.55, p < 0.0001) and in research only (B = −1.22, p = 0.003) than teaching and research institutions and in institutions receiving ≤100 patients daily than those receiving >100 patients (B = −0.38, p < 0.0001). More perceived preparedness was reported by academics with administrative roles (B = 0.59, p < 0.0001). Academics from low-income countries (LICs) and LMICs reported less availability of clinic apparel, IPC equipment, measures before patient care, and institutional policies but more measures during patient care. There was greater perceived preparedness in HICs and institutions with greater involvement in teaching, research, and patient care.

Background: COVID-19 is a global pandemic affecting all aspects of life in all countries. We assessed COVID-19 knowledge and associated factors among dental academics in various countries. Method: We invited dental academics to participate in a cross-sectional, multi-country, online survey from March to April 2020. The survey assessed knowledge of COVID-19 regarding the mode of transmission, symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, protection, and dental treatment precautions as well as participants’ background variables. The analysis was based on multilevel linear models to assess the association between knowledge and factors at individual levels (personal and professional) and country-level (number of COVID-19 cases/ million population), accounting for random variation among countries. Results: Two thousand forty-five academics from 26 countries participated in the survey (response rate= 14.3%, with 54.7% female and 67% younger than 46 years of age). The mean (SD) knowledge percent score was 73.2% (11.2), and the knowledge of symptoms score was significantly lower than the diagnostic methods score (53.1% and 85.4%). Knowledge was significantly higher among those living with partner/spouse than those living alone (regression coefficient (B)= 0.48); those with PhD than those with BDS (B= 0.48), those seeing 21 to 30 patients daily than those seeing no patients (B= 0.65) and those from countries with a higher number of COVID-19 cases/million population (B= 0.0007). Conclusions: Dental academics had poorer knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms than diagnostic methods. Living arrangements, academic degrees, patient load, and magnitude of epidemic in the country were associated with COVD-19 knowledge among dental academics. COVID-19 training can be designed using these factors to target academics with the greatest need.