Biossegurança no ambiente odontológico e prevalência de COVID-19 em Cirurgiões-Dentistas do estado da Paraíba

Abstract

O objetivo do presente trabalho foi avaliar a prevalência de cirurgiões-dentistas do estado da Paraíba acometidos pelo novo Coronavírus e os seus conhecimentos sobre as normas de biossegurança para controle de disseminação do vírus no ambiente odontológico. O estudo foi do tipo quantitativo, analítico e descritivo, desenvolvido por meio da aplicação de um questionário eletrônico destinado aos cirurgiões-dentistas do estado da Paraíba. Os dados foram processados com o auxílio do programa estatístico SPSS, versão 21.0. e as associações entre as variáveis foram realizadas pelo teste de Qui-quadrado (IC 95%). Participaram da pesquisa 641 cirurgiões-dentistas, sendo a maioria do gênero feminino (65,2%), com faixa etária entre 20 e 30 anos (55,1%), atuando no interior do estado (58,2%) e trabalhando em clínica odontológica privada (43,3%); 27,8% dos entrevistados afirmaram que tiveram a doença COVID-19 e 44,2% tiveram sintomas leves; 98,4% afirmaram que possuem conhecimento em relação a disseminação do vírus em ambiente odontológico, a maioria (77,7%) atendeu pacientes durante o momento de surto da COVID-19 e 41,8% relataram sentirem-se seguros em realizar atendimento. Os profissionais do sexo masculino foram os mais infectados e os que evoluíram mais para os sintomas mais graves da doença, bem como os acima de 40 anos de idade (p≤0,005). Conclui-se que é baixa a prevalência de cirurgiões-dentistas contaminados pela COVID-19 e os profissionais demonstraram possuir conhecimento no que diz respeito aos protocolos de biossegurança adotados para a contenção de disseminação da doença no ambiente odontológico.

Risk Perception on Covid 19 and Biosecurity Practices in Private Dental Practice

“…This study confirmed, as other studies have done before, that the pandemic triggered a great concern and interest among dental personnel to learn about the risk of COVID 19 and how to deal with it, and as a consequence, most professionals incorporated the use of new equipment, clothing and supplies into their practice. [2][3][4]9], What this study was able to document, however, is that the adoption of these biosecurity practices, more than the protocols issued by formal institutions, was due to the emotion of fear and uncertainty that invaded the professionals, those who acted in recognition of and prioritised their own vulnerability to SARS-COV2, since the perception of risk was identified as being based, as has been documented in other studies, on the fear of becoming infected or bringing the disease to their relatives [16]. This is to be expected since, as Susan Cutter says, although «risks are always present, they become hazards only when humans or the environment come into contact with them», Under this premise, elaborating a perception of risk in general and in the first place demands that we assume ourselves to be vulnerable in relation to what is threatening, because it is in contact with it that we have the opportunity to subjectivise risk, to stop contemplating it as something abstract and to assume it as an experience that acquires a sense of ominousness, that occurs when experiences that have become commonplace suddenly involve conditions over which we perceive a sense of lack of control or affect our familiarity with those situations [17].…”

“…In the perception of risk that the professionals constructed, it can be observed that within the framework of the emotion of fear and uncertainty, they prioritised above all their personal safety, as Renn mentions [18] individuals in a state of risk become more individualistic and hierarchical, with a pessimistic outlook and increased vulnerability to risks. Professional risk should cease to be seen as a fatality and should be assumed as an act of responsibility, but for this to happen, more must be done than just including microbiology content in the subjects; reflective processes must be encouraged in real practice, situations that the informants say they have not experienced, and which explains why even though other authors have reported that the level of knowledge about cross-infection is acceptable, this does not translate into safe interventions in practice [5][6][7][8][9]. In the light of the above, we have identified that there is a tendency to normalise risk, and even to devalue the risk when it comes to cross-infection in the user population, a situation that is relevant because it shows how, while recognising and even overestimating one's own risk, The user's perception of risk is accepted on a daily basis, as Douglas' contributions show, because the perception of risk also emerges from the processes of interaction that prevail in relationships [19].…”

“…In the context of the pandemic, particularly during the first and second waves, several studies were conducted to explore the adequacy of health wokers knowledge to estimate risk and adjust practice, generally documenting that the level of knowledge was at an acceptable average and even high and very high level [6,7], however, others stated that while the level of knowledge was acceptable, there was limited understanding of additional biosecurity precautions [8], also that, regardless of the knowledge level scores achieved, this did not translate into the successful implementation of biosecurity practices [9]. Now, while it is true that there was a delay in issuing specific biosafety protocols, it is pertinent to note that the American Dental Association [ADA] has written enough, -prior to and during the pandemic-that biosecurity includes the proper and strict use of protective equipment, as well as the rigorous implementation of asespsis techniques, sterilisation and regular biological controls, in this context, however, it is necessary to recognise that despite the specificity of these guidelines, studies on biosecurity continue to document weaknesses related to an over-reliance on professionals, and with the circulation on the market of ineffective disinfectants or inappropriate practices, such as the reuse of equipment and materials that are designed to be disposable.…”

Factors related to occupational stress among private sector dentists in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

“…With social isolation, however, the population as a whole began to make more use of these tools 23 model in both outcomes, in which younger professionals felt less prepared and safe, and more anxious and concerned about working during the pandemic. In Turkey, recent dentistry graduates seemed to be the most affected during the pandemic 24 and a study in Paraíba State in Brazil showed greater confidence in working during the pandemic among older dentists, which can be explained by their being longer in practice and more stably established in the profession 25 .…”

Fatores associados ao estresse ocupacional entre cirurgiões-dentistas do setor privado no primeiro ano da pandemia de COVID-19

“…A idade foi o único fator individual de influência mantido no modelo teórico dentro dos dois desfechos, com os profissionais mais jovens se sentindo menos preparados e seguros, e mais ansiosos e preocupados, para trabalhar durante a pandemia. Na Turquia, cirurgiões-dentistas recém-formados parecem ser os mais afetados durante a pandemia 24 , e no estado da Paraíba, estudo mostrou maior segurança em atuar durante a pandemia entre os cirurgiões-dentistas mais idosos ou com maior idade, o que pode se justificar pelo maior tempo no mercado de trabalho e maior estabilidade na profissão 25 .…”