The saliva of patients with COVID-19 has a high SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The risk of spreading the virus is high, and procedures for viral load reduction in the oral cavity are important. Little research to date has been performed on the effect of mouthwashes on the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load. This pilot randomized single-center clinical trial investigated whether three types of mouthwash with solutions containing either 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride plus 0.28% zinc lactate (CPC þ Zn), 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (HP), or 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva at different time points. Sixty SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were recruited and randomly partitioned into a placebo (oral rinsing with distilled water) group and other groups according to the type of mouthwash. Saliva samples were collected from the participants before rinsing (T0), immediately after rinsing (T1), 30 min after rinsing (T2), and 60 min after rinsing (T3). The salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load was measured by qRT-PCR assays. Rinsing with HP and CPC þ Zn resulted in better reductions in viral load, with 15.8 AE 0.08-and 20.4 AE 3.7-fold reductions at T1, respectively. Although the CPC þ Zn group maintained a 2.6 AE 0.1-fold reduction at T3, this trend was not observed for HP. HP mouthwash resulted in a significant reduction in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load up to 30 min after rinsing (6.5 AE 3.4). The CHX mouthwash significantly reduced the viral load at T1, T2, and T3 (2.1 AE 1.5-, 6.2 AE 3.8-, and 4.2 AE 2.4-fold reductions, respectively). In conclusion, mouthwash with CPC þ Zinc and CHX resulted in significant reductions of the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva up to 60 mins after rinsing, while HP mouthwash resulted in a significant reduction up to 30 mins after rinsing. Despite this transitory effect, these results encourage further studies and suggest that these products could be considered as risk-mitigation strategies for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Ricardo Guimarães FISCHER (a) Ronaldo LIRA JUNIOR (b) Belén RETAMAL-VALDES (c) Luciene Cristina de FIGUEIREDO (c,d) Zilson MALHEIROS (d,e) Bernal STEWART (d,e) Magda FERES (c,d)

No abstract

The aim of this online cross-sectional study is to identify the sources of scientific information used by Brazilian dentists in clinical decision-making and the barriers that they perceive as important to the incorporation of scientific evidence into clinical practice. A pretested questionnaire created in Google Forms which was made available to participants through links sent by e-mail or shared on Facebook® and Instagram® was used to collect the data between October 2018 and May 2019. Only dentists who were involved in direct or indirect care of patients (i.e. clinicians who performed dental procedures or dental educators who participated in the clinical training of graduate or postgraduate dental students) were asked to complete the questionnaire. The sample was comprised of 528 dentists (the response rate from the alumni database was 6.9%); their mean age was 45.2 years (±12.5) and 30.9% had an academic position. The majority were women (68.0%) and lived in Southern or Southeastern Brazil (96.0%). The sources of scientific information more frequently used by them in clinical decision-making were clinical guidelines (65.1%; 95% CI: 60.9, 69.2), scientific articles (56.8%; 95%CI: 52.5, 61.1) and bibliographic databases (48.3%; 95% CI: 43.9, 52.6). The information resource less frequently used was social media. The most important barriers to the clinical use of scientific evidence were: difficulty in determining whether scientific contents found on the Internet were reliable or not (41.8%; 95% CI: 37.6, 46.2), high cost of access to scientific papers (37.7%; 95% CI: 33.5, 41.9), and lack of time for reading scientific articles (32.4%; 95% CI: 28.4, 36.6). Although Brazilian dentists show a positive attitude towards obtaining scientific evidence from reliable sources, there still remain important barriers to the translation of evidence into practice. This can have significant implications for quality of care and should be further investigated.

Periodontal diseases are considered a worldwide public health problem, owing to their high prevalence in developed and developing countries. Periodontitis may lead to tooth loss, which can impact oral health-related quality of life. Gingivitis and periodontitis have been extensively studied regarding their etiopathogenesis, epidemiology, prevention and treatment outcomes. However, most of these aspects are studied and discussed globally, which may hamper a clear interpretation of the findings and the design of effective plans of action for specific regions or populations. For example, in Latin America, epidemiological data about the distribution of periodontal diseases is still scarce, mainly when it comes to nationwide representative samples. This Consensus aimed to address the following topics related to periodontal diseases in Latin America: a) The impact of the global burden of periodontal diseases on health: a global reality; b) Periodontal diseases in Latin America; c) Strategies for the prevention of periodontal diseases in Latin America; d) Problems associated with diagnosis of periodontal conditions and possible solutions for Latin America; e) Treatment of Periodontitis. This consensus will help to increase awareness about diagnosis, prevention and treatment of periodontal diseases, in the context of Latin American countries.