Introduction:Intraoral local anesthesia is essential for delivering dental care. Needless devices have been developed to provide anesthesia without injections. Little controlled research is available on its use in dental restorative procedures in adult patients. The aims of this study were to compare adult patients acceptability and preference for needleless jet injection with classical local infiltration as well as to evaluate the efficacy of the needleless anesthesia.Materials and Methods:Twenty non fearful adults with no previous experience of dental anesthesia were studied using split-mouth design. The first procedure was performed with classical needle infiltration anesthesia. The same amount of anesthetic solution was administered using MADA jet needleless device in a second session one week later, during which a second dental restorative procedure was performed. Patients acceptance was assessed using Universal pain assessment tool while effectiveness was recorded using soft tissue anesthesia and pulpal anesthesia. Patients reported their preference for the anesthetic method at the third visit. The data was evaluated using chi square test and student's t-test.Results:Pressure anesthesia was more accepted and preferred by 70% of the patients than traditional needle anesthesia (20%). Both needle and pressure anesthesia was equally effective for carrying out the dental procedures.Conclusion:Patients experienced significantly less pain and fear (p<0.01) during anesthetic procedure with pressure anesthesia. However, for more invasive procedures needle anesthesia will be more effective.

Based on the present study, the dentist can utilize the ORMOCER material as a restoration material for the cavities of posterior teeth which is better in terms of fracture resistance and durability of the restoration when compare to nanohybrid composite.

A bstract The emergence of the novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a significant challenge to healthcare professionals. Among all the healthcare providers, dental clinical setup is exposed to the generation of potentially hazardous aerosols which could be a point of cross-contamination. Dentists catering to pediatric patients need to take special precautions, as they have milder symptoms or could be asymptomatic and hence potential vectors for the transfer of infection. One needs to change the perspective to manage the oral health of children as a child's oral health presents specific problems that could be time-bound and hence need to be treated accordingly. These problems can be managed on one hand by preventive methods, and on the other by implementing specific protocols relating to the conditions that represent an emergency, or those situations that fall into the category of elective dental procedures. This article highlights the routes of transmission in a dental practice and focuses on the categorization of treatment for children based on treatment needs. It proposes a restructuring of the treatment protocol and hence shifting to minimal invasive or non-aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). These techniques are also proposed to be used even after the end of the current emergency period to minimize the aerosol splatter. Clinical significance The article highlights the protocol that needs to be followed after treatment categorization during and after COVID-19 pandemic. How to cite this article Lamba G, Nagpal DI, Chowdhari P, et al. Oral Healthcare Management of Children after COVID-19 Outbreak. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021;14(2):293–297.

The main reason for unfavourable outcome in endodontic treatment of mandibular incisor is the inability to detect the presence of second canal. Pain even after extirpation of complete pulp tissue from root canal of vital teeth is the main indication of hidden canals. The present case report is also on pain because of another neglected canal in all mandibular incisors in the same patient.

Background/Aim: Reattachment of a tooth fragment is a viable alternative to restore a fractured tooth. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, awareness and perception of dental practitioners towards tooth fragment reattachment procedures. Material and Methods:The cross-sectional study was conducted during 2019 and comprised dental practitioners working as general dentists or dental specialists. The subjects were asked to fill out a self-administered questionnaire. Questions related to knowledge and practice regarding fragment reattachment procedures were asked, and the responses were recorded. SPSS version 20.0 and the chi-square test were selected as the statistical tools for data analysis with significance level established at p < .05.Results: Eight hundred and fifty-seven subjects participated in the study. Of them, 404 (47%) were general dentists and 453 (53%) were specialist dentists. Out of the 857 subjects, 231 (27%) had clinical experience of less than 5 years, 268 (31.3%) between 5 and 10 years, 190 (22%) between 10 and 20 years and 168 (19.6%) had experience of over 20 years. Of the 857 subjects, 673 (78.5%) had some knowledge about the reattachment procedure and 292 (34.1%) had performed reattachment in clinical practice. The most common storage medium used for the fractured fragment was saline. The bonding material used for reattachment was lightcured composite resin. A subsequent fracture of the reattached fragment was encountered by more than 62% of the subjects.Conclusions: Lack of availability of the fragment and lack of clinical training were the major reasons for clinicians not performing the procedure routinely. The attachment procedure was most often performed by both general dentists and specialist dentists with 5-10 years of clinical experience. Furthermore, the majority of the participants did not have any familiarity with the concept of biological restorations. Cross contamination was a major clinical concern for the limited clinical application of biological restorations.