The proximity to the patient during dental care, high generation of aerosols, and the identification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva have suggested the oral cavity as a potential reservoir for COVID-19 transmission. Mouthwashes are widely-used solutions due to their ability to reduce the number of microorganisms in the oral cavity. Although there is still no clinical evidence that they can prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, preoperative antimicrobial mouth rinses with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), povidone-iodine (PVP-I), and hydrogen peroxide (H 2 O 2) have been recommended to reduce the number of microorganisms in aerosols and drops during oral procedures. This paper therefore aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current recommendations on the use of mouthwashes against the COVID-19 pandemic and to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of most conventional antiseptic mouthwashes used in dentistry.

With the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), strict isolation strategies to limit virus transmission have been applied worldwide. The lockdown has affected and challenged different medical areas. Doctors, nurses, dentists, and other health care workers are concerned about contagion, not only for themselves, but also for their families and colleagues. Furthermore, the oral mucosa has been accepted as a high-risk route of transmission for COVID-19. In many countries, dentists have been forced to stop working during quarantine until further notification. Isolation and its financial impact have produced physical and psychological pressure, depression, social anxiety, and other mental health concerns. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the consequences of past epidemics on mental health and to assess possible aspects that might be associated with mental implications in dentists during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, some concrete actions to avoid subsequent potential consequences are recommended.

No abstract

Aim:The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of alveolar ridge measurements obtained with ridge mapping (RM) technique against cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements.Materials and Methods:Twenty partially edentulous patients were recruited for implant placement in the Clinic of San Martin de Porres University. For all the measurements, a vacuum-formed stent was fabricated for each subject. A buccal and lingual point was made in the stent to provide a reference of measurement for each implant site. RM measurements with the stent were obtained before and after surgical flap reflection. Two calibrated observers made the CBCT images measurements. T-test was used for the statistical analysis. Values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Also, specificity and sensibility of CBCT and RM were compared. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)_ was measure between CBCT measurements.Results:A total of 62 implants sites were evaluated. No statistical significant differences were obtained with CBCT and RM measurements (P = 0,207). Detecting proper buccal-lingual ridge, the sensitivity and specificity were 59% and 91% for RM while CBCT obtained 92% of sensitivity and 94% of specificity. Concordance was found “good” (ICC 0.82).Conclusion:Both methods provide valid measurements. Even though, we found diagnostic limitations in the RM, it demonstrated to be a useful method for its exactitude, low cost, the immediate result and no need of radiation. CBCT was recommended when the bone ridge width and height were in the less than ideal for conventional dental implant placement.

Maxillary sinus floor elevation has been extensively documented as a safe and predictable procedure for gaining vertical bone height in the atrophic posterior maxilla. Even though, complications have been reported, which can potentially jeopardize the outcome of the regeneration and implant therapy. Therefore, the purpose of this literature review is to present, debate and analyze the different complications that can occur during a sinus floor elevation.