This study evaluated the perceptions of Brazilian undergraduate dental students about the endodontic treatments performed using NiTi rotary instruments and hand stainless steel. Data were collected using a questionnaire administered to undergraduate dental students enrolled in endodontic disciplines. The students were divided into 3 groups: G1, students who had treated straight canals with SS hand instruments; G2, students who had treated curved canals with SS hand instruments; and G3, students who had treated both straight and curved canals with NiTi rotary instruments. The number of endodontic treatments performed, types of treated teeth, students' learning, time spent, encountered difficulties, quality of endodontic treatment and characteristics of the employed technique were analyzed. There was a 91.3% rate of return for the questionnaires. Mandibular molars were the most frequently treated teeth, followed by maxillary incisors. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed no differences in learning (p=0.528) or in the characteristics of the technique employed (p=0.560) among the three groups. G3 students performed a greater number of endodontic treatments (p<0.001) in a smaller time (p<0.001) than did G1 and G2 students. Difficulties were reported primarily by students in G2 and G3 compared with G1 (p=0.048). The quality of endodontic treatments differed only between G1 and G2 (p=0.045). The use of NiTi rotary instruments should be included in undergraduate dental curriculum, contributing to the increase of patients assisted and consequently to improve the clinical experience of the students.

No abstract

No abstract

Objetivo: Analisar as exodontias de dentes permanentes (exodontia de dente permanente e múltipla com alveoloplastia por sextante) realizadas na atenção primária da Região Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte (RMBH). Métodos: Para a coleta de dados, foi utilizado o banco de dados da produtividade da atenção primária, da RMBH, ano de 2017, disponibilizado pelo Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). A variável dependente foi o indicador nº 21 do SUS, que corresponde ao percentual de exodontias realizadas dentre os procedimentos da atenção primária, cujo parâmetro deve ser ≤ 8% (≤ 8% e > 8%). As variáveis independentes foram: dados sociodemográficos (localização, população, Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano – IDH e Índice de Gini) e de saúde (cobertura de Estratégia de Saúde da Família – ESF e Equipes de Saúde Bucal – ESB e presença de Centro de Especialidades Odontológicas – CEO). Associações foram avaliadas por meio dos testes do Qui-Quadrado de Pearson e Exato de Fisher (p < 0,05), utilizando o programa SPSS 22.0. Resultados: Foram analisados 49 municípios, sendo 67,3% do núcleo metropolitano. A mediana populacional foi de 25.537 habitantes, com IDH médio de 0,707 e Índice de Gini mediano de 0,464. As medianas de cobertura da ESF e ESB foram, respectivamente, 96,7% e 52,7%. Apenas 32,7% dos municípios apresentaram CEO. O indicador nº 21 do SUS apresentou uma mediana de 6,7%. Não houve associação entre o indicador nº 21 do SUS e as variáveis sociodemográficas e de saúde (p > 0,05). Conclusão: A RMBH apresentou valores satisfatórios em relação ao percentual de exodontias realizadas, provavelmente devido aos bons indicadores socioeconômicos e de saúde bucal apresentados. Descritores: Atenção Primária à Saúde. Cirurgia bucal. Serviços de saúde bucal.

Objective: To evaluate knowledge and attitudes towards biosafety recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic at a Brazilian dental school. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed in 2020 with the clinical staff of a Brazilian dental school. The whole clinical staff was sent pre-tested selfadministered online questionnaires about knowledge and attitudes towards the recommendations for biosafety in dental settings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistical analyses were carried out for proportion calculation. Results: Disposable head covering caps, isolation gowns, and gloves were the most frequently reported personal protective equipment (PPE). The rates ranged from 52.9% to 88.5% for N95 respirators, from 68.6% to 92.6% for face shields, from 47.4% to 67.5% for conventional eye protection shields, and 45.1% to 77.4% for eye protection with solid side shields. Chlorhexidine gluconate was the most frequent mouthwash indicated before clinical dental care. The percentage of agreement to provide clinical care to patients with suspected COVID-19 varied from 23.5% to 50.0%. The percentage of respondents who agreed that bioaerosol-generating procedures should be avoided was higher than 74.5%. Less than 50% knew the correct sequence for doffing of PPE. Conclusion: This study revealed important gaps in knowledge and attitudes towards prevention and control measures against infection in dental environments in the context of COVID-19, indicating the need for improvements.