Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among dental teams in Germany

Abstract

Objectives During the corona pandemic, dental practices temporarily closed their doors to patients except for emergency treatments. Due to the daily occupational exposure, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among dentists and their team is presumed to be higher than that in the general population. This study examined this issue among dental teams across Germany. Materials and methods In total, 2784 participants provided usable questionnaires and dry blood samples. Dry blood samples were used to detect IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The questionnaires were analyzed to investigate demographic data and working conditions during the pandemic. Multivariable logistic mixed-effects models were applied. Results We observed 146 participants with positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (5.2%) and 30 subjects with a borderline finding (1.1%). Seventy-four out of the 146 participants with SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies did not report a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (50.7%), while 27 participants without SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies reported a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (1.1%). Combining the laboratory and self-reported information, the number of participants with a SARS-CoV-2 infection was 179 (6.5%). Though after adjustment for region, mixed-effects models indicated associations of use of rubber dams (OR 1.65; 95% CI: 1.01–2.72) and the number of protective measures (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 1.01–1.34) with increased risk for positive SARS-CoV-2 status, none of those variables was significantly associated with a SARS-CoV-2 status in fully adjusted models. Conclusions The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission was not higher among the dental team compared to the general population. Clinical relevance. Following hygienic regulations and infection control measures ensures the safety of the dental team and their patients.

Prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among oral health care workers worldwide: A meta‐analysis

“…In dental settings, aerosol transmission can also occur in specific situations where procedures that generate aerosols are realized. In our systematic review, the number of protective measures, use of rubber dam, type of aspirating system and the presence of HEPA filters utilization seem to affect the prevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection across dental clinics with very low certainty of evidence 30,39 . A recent systematic review found that SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA can be detected in the air in various health care settings and can also be detected in community settings, sometimes at low concentrations.…”

“…However, only seven 34,36,37,39,40,42,46 and eight 30,34,36,37,39,40,42,46 studies provided detailed information on testing sensibility/specificity and testing trademark, respectively. Only two studies disclosed conflict of interest, 32,36 and eight studies presented funding by diverse companies 30,36,37,39–41,46 …”

“…Last, most of them did not report the level of adherence to preventive measures, modifications in the clinical routine and ambient and personnel protective equipment use, such as respiratory masks, face shields and others. Just two studies provided information about protective measures in dental settings as protection against SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission 30,39 . Regarding the review processes' limitations, it was not possible to stratify dental assistants into various professional categories, or the dentist's speciality.…”

Occupational risk of COVID-19 related hospital admission in Denmark 2020–2021: a follow-up study

“…Ideally, research into risks of COVID-19 by occupation would be based on cases ascertained through systematic prospective follow-up of large cohorts of workers, with regular ascertainment of symptoms, clinical signs, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. As that has not been feasible, researchers have been forced to use proxy measures of incidence based on: PCR testing (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11), measurements of specific immunoglobulins against SARS-CoV-2 (12)(13)(14), symptoms and sickness absence (6), COVID-19 related hospital admission (7,15,16), or mortality from the disease (7,15,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22). In most studies to date, with broad coverage of occupations, mortality from COVID-19 has been the outcome measure (7,15,(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”

Efficacy of a Mouthwash Containing CHX and CPC in SARS-CoV-2–Positive Patients: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

“…Therefore, right after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was discussed that health care professionals (HCPs) from disciplines with close patient contact, where no face masks can be worn by the patients during examination and therapy, could be at high risk for nosocomial infection with SARS-CoV-2, including dentists, maxillofacial surgeons, and otorhinolaryngologists ( Meng et al 2020 ; Peng et al 2020 ). Although recent data suggest that dental practice personnel are at no higher risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2 as compared to the general public ( Araujo et al 2021 ; Mksoud et al 2022 ), there are also reports stating high infection risks for dentists as well as for HCPs from other specialties ( Nguyen et al 2020 ; Sarapultseva et al 2021 ). Among other measures such as personal protective equipment, preprocedural mouthwashes have been discussed and recommended from the early stages of the pandemic for temporarily reducing the intraoral viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals ( Gottsauner et al 2020 ; Herrera et al 2020 ; Meister et al 2020 ; Meng et al 2020 ; Peng et al 2020 ; Meister et al 2022 ).…”