Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

This literature research had two main objectives. The first objective was to quantify how frequently artificial intelligence (AI) was utilized in dental literature from 2011 until 2021. The second objective was to distinguish the focus of such publications; in particular, dental field and topic. The main inclusion criterium was an original article or review in English focused on dental utilization of AI. All other types of publications or non-dental or non-AI-focused were excluded. The information sources were Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, queried on 19 April 2022. The search string was “artificial intelligence” AND (dental OR dentistry OR tooth OR teeth OR dentofacial OR maxillofacial OR orofacial OR orthodontics OR endodontics OR periodontics OR prosthodontics). Following the removal of duplicates, all remaining publications were returned by searches and were screened by three independent operators to minimize the risk of bias. The analysis of 2011–2021 publications identified 4413 records, from which 1497 were finally selected and calculated according to the year of publication. The results confirmed a historically unprecedented boom in AI dental publications, with an average increase of 21.6% per year over the last decade and a 34.9% increase per year over the last 5 years. In the achievement of the second objective, qualitative assessment of dental AI publications since 2021 identified 1717 records, with 497 papers finally selected. The results of this assessment indicated the relative proportions of focal topics, as follows: radiology 26.36%, orthodontics 18.31%, general scope 17.10%, restorative 12.09%, surgery 11.87% and education 5.63%. The review confirms that the current use of artificial intelligence in dentistry is concentrated mainly around the evaluation of digital diagnostic methods, especially radiology; however, its implementation is expected to gradually penetrate all parts of the profession.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing with biocompatible resins offers new competition to its opposition—subtractive manufacturing, which currently dominates in dentistry. Removing dental material layer-by-layer with lathes, mills or grinders faces its limits when it comes to the fabrication of detailed complex structures. The aim of this original research was to design, materialize and clinically evaluate a functional and resilient shape of the orthodontic power-arm by means of biocompatible 3D printing. To improve power-arm resiliency, we have employed finite element modelling and analyzed stress distribution to improve the original design of the power-arm. After 3D printing, we have also evaluated both designs clinically. This multidisciplinary approach is described in this paper as a feasible workflow that might inspire application other individualized biomechanical appliances in orthodontics. The design is a biocompatible power-arm, a miniature device bonded to a tooth surface, translating significant bio-mechanical force vectors to move a tooth in the bone. Its design must be also resilient and fully individualized to patient oral anatomy. Clinical evaluation of the debonding rate in 50 randomized clinical applications for each power-arm-variant showed significantly less debonding incidents in the improved power-arm design (two failures = 4%) than in the original variant (nine failures = 18%).

No abstract