Umer F, Haji Z, Zafar K. Role of respirators in controlling the spread of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) amongst dental healthcare providers: a review. International Endodontic Journal.During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals are at the forefront of managing the highly infectious coronavirus. As the most common route of transmission is via aerosols and droplet inhalation, it is critical for healthcare workers to have the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) including gowns, masks and goggles. Surgical masks are not effective in preventing the influenza and SARS, so they are unlikely to be able to resist contaminated aerosols from entering the respiratory system. Therefore, it is vital to use respirators which have been proven to offer better protection against droplets, aerosols and fluid penetration and which form a tight seal around the mouth and nose. Various types of respirators are used in healthcare settings, such as half-mask filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). The most commonly used FFR is the N95 disposable respirator, which is tight fitting and has a 95% or above particle filtering efficiency for a median particle size of 0.3 µm. This review discusses respirators, their purpose, types, clinical efficiency and proper donning and doffing techniques.

No abstract

Objectives: The aim of the review is to present the currently applied tissue regeneration through stem cells technology in regenerative endodontics. This review also summarises the various preclinical models used for the evaluation of stem cell-based therapies, their limitations, recent advances and challenges related to clinical applications of human stem cells. Methodology: A literature survey from 2010 to August 2022 was carried out in various electronic databases to identify the articles required for review on Pulp Regeneration through Stem Cells Technology. MeSH terms/keywords such as “Pulp regeneration,” “Pulp Revascularization,” “Pulp revitalization,” “Regenerative Endodontics” were used to search in the electronic databases comprised of PubMed database, SCOPUS, COCHRANRE library, EMBASE, CINAHL, ICTRP, Science Direct and a manual search was also done using the cross references and textbooks. Results: The searches revealed 299 articles. After reading the full text articles and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria 15 articles were selected for the review fulfilling the criteria of the study. Conclusion: Currently in regenerative endodontics, there is a broad consent that the final tissue acquired is more likely to bone-like tissue mixed with connective tissue rather than the pulp-dentin complex. Moreover, re-innervation from sensory axons in regenerated tissue, is still to date,  difficult to achieve. Keywords: Endodontics, Biocompatible, Pulp, Stem Cells, Tissue, Dentin, Axons

To the Editor, We read with great interest the systematic review and metaanalysis by Kohli et al 1 regarding pulpal and periapical status of vital teeth used as an abutment for fixed prosthesis. The authors made an ambitious attempt to generate high-quality evidence for clinicians faced with vital tooth preparation. However, some methodological errors in this review have lead us to question the quality of the conclusions made.In the review, the authors chose a PICO model to formulate their research question. The comparison group stated by the authors was incorrect. In fact, they mentioned outcome in place of the comparison. In the context of the review, a true comparative group against the intervention was technically not possible.For the literature search, the authors reviewed only two databases--PubMed and Scopus. This limits the number of articles available for data synthesis and meta-analysis. Embase, CINAHL Plus, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Dental and Oral Science are some databases that the authors could have looked into. Additionally, the literature search did not include any attempt at finding gray literature or published theses from open repositories.The present review fails to demonstrate factors predominantly associated with the successful outcomes. A subgroup analysis or metaregression (taking into account variables, such as age, caries status of teeth, tooth surface loss, and status of the opposing dentition) could have yielded more useful information that could be translated into meaningful inferences. The proportion-based, single group, meta-analysis presented in this article is useful only in demonstrating a trend among included studies but fails to provide any other valuable information.The presence of studies by Lockard 2 contributed 40−78% weight in the present review, which has inadvertently skewed the success rate. Scientific data suggest that the proportion of abutment teeth becoming nonvital increases over time with up to 25% of all teeth becoming necrotic 36 months post tooth preparation. 3 The methodological rigor in Cheung et al 4 is high; however, it contributes less than 20% weight in the present review. These factors are responsible for underreporting of loss of pulp vitality in the final analysis.Lastly, to improve the overall quality of the review, the authors should utilize the GRADE 5 approach in order to quantify the strength of the conclusions generated by the study.Thank you.

No abstract