The perception of COVID-19 among Italian dental patients: an orthodontic point of view

Abstract

Background The present study aimed to investigate the patients’ perception of the dental practice during the COVID-19 outbreak, and whether the pandemic will affect the attendance of orthodontic patients at the dental practice. An online questionnaire, including the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), was submitted to Italian dental patients with items about their perceived risks when going to the dentist, concerns about continuing orthodontic treatment, and the onset of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). Data were analyzed with a chi-square test and logistic regression analysis. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Results A total of 1566 subjects completed the survey, including 486 who were under orthodontic treatment or who had a child in orthodontic treatment. A total of 866 participants (55.3%) thought the risk of contracting the COVID-19 infection was higher in a dental practice; this perception was associated with gender (women more than man), age (over 60 years old) and high levels of distress (P<0.001). However, 894 patients (57.1%) felt comfortable going back to the dentist. Most of the orthodontic patients (84%) would continue their treatment. After the lockdown, there was a slight increase in the frequency of TMD pain (356 versus 334). Conclusions Most of the participants believed that the dental practice is a place at greater risk of contracting COVID-19, even if they continue to go to the dentist. Gender, age, and the level of distress were associated with the increase in the fear of going to the dentist due to COVID-19. Because of the pandemic, 16% of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment would not return to the dental practice to continue their orthodontic treatment after the lockdown. The prevalence of TMD pain in the population increased due to the pandemic.

Dental Patients’ Perspective on COVID-19: A Systematic Review

“…The overall risk of bias assessment of the included studies is presented in Tables S1 and S2 in Supplementary Materials. Five studies reported a moderate level of bias [21][22][23][24][25], while the remaining five studies showed low quality [26][27][28][29][30].…”

“…In surveys administered through online platforms (Table S1 in Supplementary Materials), all studies reported the survey design describing the target population or sample frame. For IRB approval and informed consent process, IRB approval was obtained by seven out of eight studies [21][22][23][24]26,29,30], informed consent was obtained by four studies [22,25,28,29], and data protection was reported by only one study [22], while it was not applicable by four surveys [21,23,27,29]. Development and pre-testing were performed by only two studies [22,30].…”

“…For the recruitment process and description of the sample having access to the questionnaire, a closed survey was applied by all studies; only one indicated that the contact mode was not through the Internet [21], while advertising to announce the survey was carried out only by Moffat et al [22]. All surveys were administered through the web or by email; six out of eight surveys described the context [21][22][23][24]28,30], and only two studies were not mandatory surveys [28,30]. Only one study used incentives [22], although this item was applicable for only two studies [21,22].…”

“…Only one study used incentives [22], although this item was applicable for only two studies [21,22]. The timeframe was identified in five studies [21][22][23][24]28]. All included studies did not report the number of items, number of screens, and completeness check, while review steps were only adopted by Peloso et al [29].…”

“…Information about the handling of incomplete questionnaires was not described. Statistical corrections were adopted by five studies [21][22][23][24]28].…”