No abstract

Objectives This scoping review aimed to map and compile the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of decontaminating N95 respirators against the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Data We selected studies written in English assessing or discussing the decontamination strategies of N95 respirators against SARS-CoV-2. Two independent researchers performed the search and study screening. A descriptive analysis was carried out considering the study design of the included studies. Sources PubMed, SCOPUS, and Preprint platforms (bioRxiv and medRxiv). Study selection We included 55 reports from PubMed and SCOPUS. Nine articles were letters to the editors, 21 were in vitro studies, 16 were literature reviews, and 9 were classified as other study designs. We included 37 preprints. Two articles were letters to the editors, 24 were in vitro studies, 3 were literature reviews, and 8 were classified as other study designs. In general, vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet irradiation were the strategies most cited and most promising. However, there is a lack of evidence and consensus related to the best method of N95 respirator decontamination. Conclusion The evidence regarding decontamination strategies of N95 respirators against SARS-CoV-2 remains scarce. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet irradiation seem to be the current standard for N95 respirator decontamination. Clinical significance Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet irradiation appear to be the most promising methods for N95 respirator decontamination.

the number of dental surgeons in Brazil is high, although they are not equally distributed between both sectors. This may imply barriers to dental care access in Brazil.

No abstract

The effect of root canal preparation technique on microcrack initiation is a controversial issue. This systematic review aimed to assess the role of root canal preparation techniques with different kinematics (manual, rotary, reciprocating, adaptive, self-adjusting file) on microcrack initiation. In vitro and in situ studies comparing the influence of at least two different root canal preparation techniques on the initiation of dentin microcracks were searched in PubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS up to June 5, 2018 without language and period restriction. Two authors independently reviewed all identified titles and abstracts for eligibility. Tables were generated to summarize the included studies, and the included studies were assessed for bias. Fifty-four (n=54) articles met the eligibility criteria. The results were classified according to the method used for microcrack evaluation, and most studies that used micro-computed tomography showed no formation of new cracks after root canal preparation. In general, the instrumentation techniques induced microcrack formation when the methods were destructive, irrespective of kinematics. In relation to the apex region, when the preparation working length was set as the root canal length subtracted of 1 mm, the risk of microcrack initiation reduces. The majority of the included studies had low risk of bias for all assessed domains. Our results seem to indicate that the various root canal preparation techniques considered in this study will not cause damage to the dental structure when adequately employed and the proper methodology is applied.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective This study aimed to assess the characteristics of different designs of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) about COVID‐19. Methods The search was performed in the PROSPERO database using the strategy proposed by the database and considered only human studies. The last date of the search was April 27, 2020. Full text of all records was accessed, and data were extracted by a single researcher, which was further double‐checked by another researcher. A descriptive analysis was performed considering record characteristics using tables. Results We included 564 records from which the vast majority were registered as SRs (n = 513, 91%). In general, we found poor reporting and missing or confusing information, since 84% of the records (n = 474) did not report the full search that would be adopted, 16% (n = 90) did not report clearly the databases that would be used, and 49.1% (n = 277) did not report the number of primary outcomes. The main focus of most of the records involved clinical, epidemiological, complication, and laboratory characteristics (n = 173, 30.7%) or the treatment of COVID‐19 (n = 138, 24.5%). Conclusion A large number of SRs about COVID‐19 have been conducted, and many of the assessed records were poorly reported and would be difficult to replicate. Besides, collected data points to an epidemic of redundant reviews on COVID‐19.