No abstract

Introduction This survey investigated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical practice of endodontics among the AAE members by evaluating the impact on clinical activities, patient screening, infection control measurements, potential transmission, clinical protocols as well as psychological concerns. Material and Methods A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was developed to query AAE members from all seven districts. The survey consisted of 24 questions, eight demographic questions, and 16 questions related to the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the clinical practice. Results A total of 454 AAE members participated in the survey. As of July 2020, most endodontists were active in front line treatment of dental patients (82%). N95 respirator face mask was described by 83.1% of the participants as special measures beyond the regular PPE. Rubber dam isolation was recognized by the majority of the participants at some level to reduce the chance of COVID-19 cross-infection. Most of the endodontist participants acknowledged trauma followed by swelling, pain, postoperative complication to be emergencies. The majority of respondents reported being concerned about the effect of COVID-19 upon their practice. No differences in worries about COVID-19 infection were related to demographics (p>.05). Conclusions The majority of the Endodontists are aware of the COVID-19 pandemic, taking special precautions, and are concerned about contracting and spreading the virus. Despite the conflict between their roles as health care providers and family members with the potential risk of exposing their families, most of them remain on duty providing front line care for dental treatment.

Aims (1) To investigate aerosolized microorganisms generated during endodontic emergencies and non—surgical root canal therapy (NSRCT); (2) To assess how far airborne microbial spread; and (3) To verify the spatial distribution of airborne microbial spread. Methods A total of 45 endodontic procedures were sampled, including full pulpotomy (n=15), pulpectomy (n=15), and NSRCT (n=15). Samples were collected during room resting (s1) and after the treatment (s2). The passive air sampling technique using settle plates was applied. Agar plates were set at different locations in the operatory. The colony-forming unit (CFU) was counted in BHI blood agar plates. A set of agar plates containing selective chromogenic culture media was used for the isolation and presumptive identification of target microorganisms. Fungi were investigated using Sabouraud Dextrose Agar. Results Pulpotomy generated the lowest mean CFU count (p<0.05). There was no difference between the mean CFU counts found in pulpectomy and NSRCT (p>0.05). A higher mean CFU count was found close to the patient’s mouth (0.5m) than at a 2m distance in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P<0.05). There was no difference between the mean CFU count found in front of the patient’s mouth versus diagonal in pulpectomy and NSRCT (p>0.05). S. aureus (22/ 45, 48.8%) was the most frequent bacteria species. Longer treatment times were associated with higher CFU counts. Conclusion Our findings indicated that pulpotomy generates less aerosolized microorganisms than pulpectomy and NSRCT. Moreover, the proximity to the patient’s mouth and the treatment duration implicated in the level of contamination.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of GentleWave system (GWS) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in removing lipopolysaccharides (LPS) from infected root canals after minimally invasive (MIT) and conventional instrumentation (CIT) techniques. Sixty first premolars with two roots were inoculated with fluorescent LPS conjugate (Alexa Fluor 594). Of those, twelve were dentin pretreated, inoculated with fluorescent LPS conjugate, and submitted to confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) to validate the LPS-infection model. Forty-eight teeth were randomly divided into treatment groups: GWS + MIT, GWS + CIT, PUI + MIT, and PUI + CIT (all, n = 12). Teeth were instrumented with Vortex Blue rotary file size 15/0.04 for MIT and 35/0.04 for CIT. Samples were collected before (s1) and after a root canal procedure (s2) and after cryogenically ground the teeth (s3) for intraradicular LPS analysis. LPS were quantified with LAL assay (KQCL test). GWS + MIT and GWS + CIT were the most effective protocols against LPS, with no difference between them (p > 0.05). PUI + CIT was more effective than PUI + MIT (p < 0.05) but less effective than GWS + MIT and GWS + CIT. GWS was the most effective protocol against LPS in infected root canals using MIT and CIT techniques.

No abstract