Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that mainly transfers from human to human via respiratory and gastrointestinal routes. The S-glycoprotein in the virus is the key factor for the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the cell, which contains two functional domains: S1 is an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor binding domain, and S2 is necessary for fusion of the coronavirus and cell membranes. Moreover, it has been reported that ACE2 is likely to be the receptor for SARS-CoV-2. In addition, mRNA level expression of Furin enzyme and ACE2 receptor had been reported in airway epithelia, cardiac tissue, and enteric canals. However, the expression patterns of ACE2 and Furin in different cell types of oral tissues are still unclear.Methods: In order to investigate the potential infective channel of the new coronavirus via the oropharyngeal cavity, we analyze the expression of ACE2 and Furin in human oral mucosa using the public single-cell sequence datasets. Furthermore, immunohistochemistry was performed in mucosal tissue from different oral anatomical sites to confirm the expression of ACE2 and Furin at the protein level.Results: The bioinformatics results indicated the differential expression of ACE2 and Furin on epithelial cells from different oral anatomical sites. Immunohistochemistry results revealed that both the ACE2-positive and Furin-positive cells in the target tissues were mainly positioned in the epithelial layers, partly expressed in fibroblasts, further confirming the bioinformatics results.Conclusions: Based on these findings, we speculated that SARS-CoV-2 could invade oral mucosal cells through two possible routes: binding to the ACE2 receptor and fusion with cell membrane activated by Furin protease. Our results indicated that oral mucosa tissues are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 that could facilitate COVID-19 infection via respiratory and fecal–oral routes.

No abstract

Background This study aims to compare the percentage of dentin removed, instrumentation efficacy, root canal filling and load at fracture between contracted endodontic cavities, and traditional endodontic cavities on root canal therapy in premolars. Methods Forty extracted intact human first premolars were imaged with micro-CT and randomly assigned to the contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) groups. CEC was prepared with the aid of a 3D-printed template, canals were prepared with a 0.04 taper M-Two rotary instrument, and cavities were restored with resin. Specimens were loaded to fracture in an Instron Universal Testing Machine after a fatigue phase. The data were analyzed by the independent samples T test and Mann-Whitney U test, appropriate post hoc tests. Results In the premolars tested in vitro, the percentage of dentin removed in the premolars with two dental roots in the CEC group (3.85% ± 0.42%) was significantly smaller (P < 0.05) than in the TEC group (4.94% ± 0.5%). The untouched canal wall (UCW) after instrumentation for TECs (16.43% ± 6.56%) was significantly lower (P < .05) than the UCW (24.42% ± 9.19%) for CECs in single-rooted premolars. No significant differences were observed in the increased canal volume and surface areas in premolars between the TEC and CEC groups (P > 0.05). CECs conserved coronal dentin in premolars with two dental roots but no impact on the instrument efficacy. There were no differences between the CEC groups and the TEC groups in the percentage of filling material and voids (P > 0.05). In addition, the mean load at failure of premolars did not significantly differ between the CEC and TEC groups and there was no significant difference in the type of fracture (P > 0.05). Conclusion The results of this study suggest that CEC could not improve the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated premolars. The instrumentation efficacy and the percentage of filling material did not significantly differ between CECs and TECs in premolars.