Background/aim: The majority of traumatic dental injuries (TDI) in childhood and adolescence occur in schools. Since school teachers are often the first responders, their knowledge about the emergency management of TDI needs to be adequate. The aim of this systematic review was to assess and analyse the global status of this knowledge as reported in previous studies and to provide recommendations for future research. Methods: The protocol was designed as per PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. A broad-based search using text-words and MeSH terms was performed in established databases as per a predefined strategy. Cohort-studies, crosssectional, case-control studies and randomized/non-randomized trials without any distinction of language and year of publication were included while those without details of sampling strategy, validity and reliability were excluded. Data extraction was performed, risk of bias assessment was done by the Joanna-Briggs-Institute's critical appraisal checklist and meta-analysis was performed for four question stems using a random effects model. Results: Twenty-three studies were included for qualitative analysis. Most of the studies had been conducted in Asia from 2009 to 2019. Ten studies used case-based questionnaires, mostly adapted from previous studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was observed in 14 studies. Less than 50% of teachers had witnessed a TDI in 8 studies and >75% desired to know more about TDI management in most studies. Less than 50% of teachers in 5 out of 6 studies knew about immediate replantation of avulsed permanent teeth, <25% knew about storage of an avulsed tooth in 16 studies and <50% knew about cleaning of a dirty avulsed tooth in 8 studies. Meta-analysis revealed I 2 values of >95% with 17% of teachers having previous dental-trauma firstaid training and 38% knowing about replantation within 30 minutes. Conclusion: The awareness level in several areas of the world is unknown. Studies lacked well-designed questionnaires and teachers exhibited low self-belief and knowledge level in the majority of studies. | 569 TEWARI ET Al. How to cite this article: Tewari N, Goel S, Rahul M, et al. Global status of knowledge for prevention and emergency management of traumatic dental injuries among school teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent

Referenc e Organism Source of literatur e Type Common causes Common risk factors Characteristic Manifestation Treatment Outcome Other ocular manifestations 27-33 Pythium spp. Case series Filamentous fungus P. insidiosum, CL, farming, contaminated water and trauma, thalassemia Necrotic ulcer with surrounding dot-like and tentacle-like corneal infiltrates Azithromyc in, clarithromy cin, minocyclin e, tigecycline, TPK Poor, Recurrences are common Scleritis 36,44,45 Alternaria spp.

No abstract

Background Dental professionals are the primary care providers for traumatic dental injuries (TDI). The dental traumatology literature has a number of studies evaluating the knowledge of dental professionals from different parts of the world but its global status is unknown. Hence, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the global status of knowledge for the prevention and emergency management of TDI in dental professionals and to provide recommendations for future research. Materials and Methods The protocol was designed as per the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020192381). A broad‐based search using text words and MeSH terms was performed in established databases as per a pre‐defined strategy without any distinction of language and year of publication. Studies without details of the questionnaire, knowledge score, validity and reliability were excluded. Data extraction was performed, risk of bias assessment was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool, and a meta‐analysis was performed. Results Sixteen studies, which had been published between 2008 and 2020, were included for qualitative synthesis. Most of them were cross‐sectional, used convenience sampling and evaluated knowledge for avulsion. Previous dental trauma training was undertaken by <50% of the participants of five studies, <50% knew about the correct approach in management of complicated crown fractures in three studies and ≤60% in four studies knew the critical time for replantation. There was insufficient level of knowledge in >50% of the included studies. High risk of bias was found in three studies. Conclusion The knowledge level in several areas of the world was unknown. The studies lacked uniformity in methods and well‐designed questionnaires and they revealed insufficient levels of knowledge among dental professionals.

Background/Aims: Evidence mapping of systematic reviews (SRs) systematically and comprehensively identifies, organizes, and summarizes the distribution of scientific evidence in a field. The aims of this study were to delineate domains in dental traumatology (DT), evaluate the existing SRs within the domains, and identify the paucity of evidence for future research. Methods: Domains and sub-domains of DT were established according to the methods of qualitative research. The protocol for evidence mapping was prepared as per the guidelines of GEM and PRISMA. The search strategy was formulated using words and MeSH terms in eight databases without restriction of languages and year of publication. Gray literature, protocol registries, and references of selected articles were also searched. Duplicates were removed, and the final selection of SRs was completed. Data extraction and quality analysis using the ROBIS tool and the PRISMA checklist were performed. Results: The overall search resulted in 64 SRs from 1999 to 2020 with 44 published in last six years. The highest number of SRs had been performed in the Prognostic domain (n = 19) followed by the domains of Epidemiology (n = 15), Therapeutics (n = 10), Oral Biology (n = 7), Diagnostics (n = 6), Preventive (n = 5), and Research Methods (n = 2). Within each domain, there were variabilities in the number of reviewers, a priori protocols, search limitations, risk of bias methods, and meta-analysis. Of the SRs, including 4 Cochrane reviews, 28.4% were inconclusive. A low risk of bias was found in 48.4% of the SRs. Among the registered and ongoing SRs, six were from the domain of epidemiology, two in the domain of therapeutics, five from prognostics, and one each in the domains of prevention and research methods. Conclusion: The SRs in DT could be mapped in seven domains with variabilities in the methods. The majority had an a priori registered protocol and a low risk of reporting errors. Within the Epidemiology and Preventive domains, SRs were present in all the sub-domains with the majority demonstrating low-risk of bias (ROB). The domain of prognosis had SRs in most sub-domains but with a high ROB. Insufficient numbers