Moran Rubanenko

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all the professions of life, particularly the healthcare sector. In dentistry, prevention of viral spread among healthcare professionals and patients was a substantial challenge. The virus can directly or indirectly infect dentists during dental procedures. This study focuses on the purpose of pediatric patients’ emergency visits to dental clinics and the treatments practiced during the lockdown. It compares the purpose of emergency pediatric patient visits in dental clinics and their treatments before, during, and after the lockdown periods. Computerized data for two consecutive years (2019 and 2020), between 19 March and 30 April and after the lockdown period from 1 May to 12 June 2020, were collected from five random dental clinics in Israel. The emergency visits of patients under 18 years before, during, and after the lockdown was organized into demographic characteristics, the purpose of the visits, and the treatments with medication or dental procedures. Categorical variables were compared and correlated with the chi-squared test and Pearson’s test, respectively, by using SPSS version 21. During the lockdown, emergency cases got appointments for a physical checkup. Herein, we found higher cases of emergency visits of pediatric patients with pain (n = 281, 32.6%) than trauma (n = 18, 24.7%), followed by infection (n = 31, 28.4%) and treatment continuation (n = 7, 20.6%) during the lockdown period, compared to before and after the lockdown periods. The patients treated with medication and dental procedures during lockdown were significantly different (p < 0.001) than before and after the lockdown. Extraction (n = 81, 41.5%), filling (n = 84, 50.6%), fluoride (n = 13, 92.9%), and pulp treatment (n = 92, 42.6%) were substantially practiced in pediatric patients during the lockdown. Further, this study confirmed the rapid adaptation of professional dentists to deal with non-vaccinated pediatric patients and reinforced the better preparation and requirements for such challenges in the future.

Background: Antibiotics are widely used in dentistry. Dentists often provide antibiotics unnecessarily. Excessive use can induce resistant bacterial strains. There are certain indications for the proper use of antibiotics for pediatric dentistry according to the European and American Pediatric Dentistry (EAPD and AAPD). Very often dentists do not follow these guidelines. Objectives: This study aims to examine the level of knowledge among general dentists (who also treat children) and pediatric dentists on proper use of antibiotics. In addition, we examined whether there is unjustified use of antibiotics, if dentists are aware of the new and conservative approach of administering antibiotics to patients, and whether there is a relationship between years of professional seniority and dentist’s knowledge level of proper use of antibiotics. Methods: One hundred general dentists (GD) who treat children in addition to 100 pediatric dentists (PD) completed the study questionnaires which measured knowledge, practice and attitudes regrading using antibiotics during dental treatment among children. Results: The general average of level of knowledge on proper use of antibiotics among general dentists was relatively low for both GD (60.7%) and PDs (65%). PDs demonstrated a relatively greater knowledge of correct use of antibiotics, especially in cases of endodontics and trauma. PDs also showed higher awareness to latest guidelines for the admission of “prophylactic antibiotics” according to the American Association (AAPD) and/or the European Union (EAPD) compared with GDs (86.2% vs. 66.3%). Conclusion: The level of knowledge of both general dentists and pediatric dentists is poor, with a large percentage of dentists from both groups not knowing whether antibiotics are needed in a specific dental case or not. Compliance with the EAPD/AAPD guidelines is also low and inadequate. The method of prescribing antibiotics given by dentists can be improved by increasing awareness, educational initiatives, and postgraduate courses among dentists regarding the recommended indications.

Purpose: Tricalcium silicate (Biodentine), a new synthetic inorganic restorative cement, has shown a high rate of success in pulpotomy treatments, with few side effects. The purpose of the present randomized clinical control trial was to evaluate the long-term success of pulpotomies in human primary molars using tricalcium silicate versus formocresol. Methods: Healthy two- to 10-year-olds were treated with pulpotomies on primary molars as part of their scheduled regular dental treatment. Pulp dressing alternated randomly between tricalcium silicate and formocresol. Data were analyzed at follow-up periods up to 48 months. Results: Thirty-seven (51.4 percent) teeth with tricalcium silicate and 35 (48.6 percent) teeth with formocresol in 58 healthy children (31 boys and 27 girls) were studied. The overall success rote of the pulpotomies in this study was 94.4 percent. Tricaldum silicate was successful in 973 percent (36 out of 37) of the cases, and formocresol in 91.4 percent (32 out of 35). No assodation was found between success and type of tooth or time range from treatment to last follow-up. Conclusion: Tricalcium silicate shows a higher (though not statistically significant) success rate than formocresol in human primary molars pulpotomies followed for two to four years.