COVID-19 Pandemic: Tackling the Situation and Supporting the Auxilliary Staff

Sane, Vikrant Dilip; Sane, Rashmi; Kadam, Pankaj

doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000007009

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The non-aerosol-generating bonding technique is an urgent clinical requirement in the present pandemic situation, with the risk of spreading the infection by undiagnosed and asymptomatic patients being increased by 87%. 28 The recommendation of this study is that NABT should be strictly followed in all orthodontic setups during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic instead of suspending all clinical practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of bracket bond failure with the aerosol-generating and novel non-aerosol-generating bonding techniques during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among orthodontic patients: A retrospective cohort study

Qabool¹,

Sukhia²,

Fida³

et al. 2022

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. As per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, dentists must avoid the aerosol-generating procedures during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic.Objectives. This study aimed to compare the rate of bracket bond failure with the aerosol-generating and non-aerosol generating bonding techniques. Material and methods.A retrospective cohort study was conducted during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on a sample of 44 patients (880 teeth), equally divided into 2 groups: the conventional aerosol-generating bonding technique (ABT); and the novel non-aerosol-generating bonding technique (NABT). The rate of bracket survival and total number of bracket breakages in the 2 groups were assessed by means of the survival regression analysis. The influence of pre-treatment factors, such as the sagittal jaw relationship (ANB), the Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (FMA), overjet, overbite, and upper and lower crowding, on the rate of bracket survival was also evaluated.Results. There was a statistically significant difference between ABT and NABT in terms of bracket survival. The mean bracket survival with ABT was 176.21 ±77.89 days and with NABT it was 162.53 ±83.34 days. The novel technique showed a hazard ratio of bracket survival of 2.99 as compared to the conventional method. There was a statistically significant influence of overjet on the rate of bracket survival (p = 0.010). The posterior segment had a higher rate of bracket failure as compared to the anterior segment in NABT, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). However, this difference was statistically non-significant in the case of ABT. Conclusions.There was an increased rate of bracket failure with NABT as compared to ABT. The rate of bracket breakages in the anterior quadrants was comparable for both bonding techniques.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%