Journal of the Canadian Dental Association最新文献

Purpose/objective: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and universities transitioned to online learning. The objective of this study was to evaluate the experience of students with the online education program offered during the initial phase of the pandemic.

Methods: In April 2020, an anonymous online survey was distributed to 248 undergraduate dental and dental hygiene students in Dalhousie University's faculty of dentistry. The survey contained 10 Likert-type and 3 open-ended questions asking students to evaluate their online learning experience and their preferences regarding in-person and online learning.

Results: The response rate was 62.5%. Two-thirds (65.8%) of respondents reported that their educational experience in a virtual setting was very or somewhat positive, while only 14.8% said it was negative or somewhat negative. However, 60.6% agreed or strongly agreed that they preferred face-to-face learning over virtual classroom learning. Students were evenly split on whether online teaching should replace classroom teaching where possible (38.1% agreed/strongly agreed, 39.3% disagreed/strongly disagreed). Analysis of the responses to open-ended questions gave rise to 6 themes: online teaching and assessment methods; helpful online instructor behaviours/traits; advantages of online learning; disadvantages of online learning; combining online and in-person learning; online learning during the pandemic.

Conclusions: Although the sudden transition to online learning was generally well received by students, there still appears to be support for maintaining some form of traditional, face-to-face learning methods in dental education. Students felt that ensuring faculty were creative, understanding and flexible was paramount in the transition to teaching in an online format.

Objectives: This investigation aimed to determine whether fluoride concentration in water at the user endpoint remains the same as at the adjusted source, i.e., water treatment facilities.

Methods: Daycares in Alberta, Canada, were used as the endpoint to measure fluoride concentration. They were randomly selected from a list of 400 licensed daycares provided by the Ministry of Children's Services. All water samples collected from the daycares were sent to the accredited Alberta Centre for Toxicology (ACFT) for analysis within 7 days of collection. ACFT used ion chromatography to determine fluoride concentration levels. Statistics analyses were conducted using the software SPSS 25.

Results: Water samples were collected from 141 daycares in 35 municipalities. In municipalities that adjust fluoride content, public water is supplied by 8 Alberta Environment & Parks regulated water systems. Fluoride concentration in water samples examined at the endpoint ranged from 0.58 mg/L to 0.79 mg/L. The differences between fluoride concentration at the water treatment facilities and the daycares ranged from -0.03 to 0.22 mg/L.

Conclusions: This study confirms that the concentration of fluoride adjusted at water treatment facilities in Alberta is maintained at endpoints at the approximate optimal level of 0.7 mg/L.

Objectives: The aims of this study were to characterize the type and frequency of oral and maxillofacial malignancies in an outpatient oral pathology service and to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis of such malignancies by dentists in Ontario, Canada.

Study design: Our study included 775 malignancies submitted to an outpatient oral pathology service. Demographic and diagnostic data, including age, sex, submitting clinician type, anatomic site and diagnosis, were collected and analyzed for 2 periods, 2015-2019 and 2020.

Results: Malignancies represented 2% of total submissions to our biopsy service. Oral surface epithelial malignancies were the most common, followed by hematologic and salivary gland malignancies. During the period in which dental offices were restricted (April-May 2020), 59% fewer malignancies were submitted compared with the preceding 5 years. Despite this reduction, total malignant submissions for 2020 and post-lockdown (July-September 2020) were significantly elevated compared with previous years (p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0008, respectively).

Conclusions: Our study reaffirms the important role that dentists play in the diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial malignancies. Our assessment of 2020 data highlights the impact of dental office closures on the diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: In most North American jurisdictions, guidelines for use of biologic indicators (BIs) in general dental practice have recommended testing at least weekly. However, in 2011, Alberta mandated a change to daily testing, and other provinces have adopted similar protocols. This study of general dental practices in Alberta assessed factors related to implementation of the changed requirement.

Methods: A survey of 705 randomly selected dental offices queried factors related to implementation of the daily BI testing protocol, including the number of positive test results. We compared findings to analogous data from external laboratory BI tests obtained on a weekly or monthly basis over the preceding 10 years.

Results: The response rate was a 32.6%. The survey results indicated almost complete compliance with the daily testing requirement and a universal shift to in-office testing. A commensurate 76-fold increase in testing was accompanied by a 15-fold decrease in positive results compared with previous laboratory data. However, although not statistically significant, more offices identified defective sterilizer function through internal testing compared with less-frequent external laboratory testing (5.7% vs 3.2%). The offices reporting positive test results had a significantly higher mean number of repeat positive tests (internal 3.1, SD 1.9 vs. external 1.1, SD 0.11).

Conclusions: The daily testing requirement was accompanied by a concomitant universal shift from external laboratory to internal office testing. A large decline in the rate of positive testing results was observed, although possibly more offices identified defective sterilizer function.

Introduction: Occupational characteristics of dental care - including closed environment, proximity to staff and patients and the use of aerosol-generating procedures - put workers at high risk of COVID-19 exposure and transmission. We describe the frequency of workplace situations that potentially increase the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in dental care compared with other occupations including health care.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using sociodemographic and occupational data from the 2016 Canadian census linked to workplace characteristics from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) dataset. We assessed frequency of workplace indicators using an intensity score from 0 (low) to 100 (high) from O*NET on exposure to infection or disease, physical proximity to others, indoor controlled environments, standard protective equipment and specialized protective equipment.

Results: In 2016, 87 815 Canadians worked in the 5 dentistry occupations of interest: dentists; denturists; dental hygienists and dental therapists; dental technologists, technicians and laboratory assistants; and dental assistants. These occupations were routinely ranked in the top 10 of all occupations examined in terms of exposure to workplace indicators that increase the risk of exposure to COVID-19. Dental hygienists and dental therapists, dental assistants, dentists and denturists, rank as the top 4 occupations, in that order, with the highest exposure to disease or infection and physical proximity to others combined.

Conclusions: Compared with other occupations, dental care workers are at a higher risk of occupational exposure to COVID-19. These results support the development of workplace guidance to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission and enhance the well-being of the dental care workforce.

Objectives: In early 2020, COVID-19 was classified a pandemic. During phase 1 (16 March-18 May 2020) in British Columbia (BC), dental services were restricted to those that were emergent and essential. Such services were provided by several university and hospital-based dental clinics affiliated with the University of British Columbia (UBC), including the BC Cancer Agency Department of Oral Oncology (BCCA), BC Children's Hospital Department of Dentistry (BCCH) and the UBC Oral Health Centre (OHC). This study was designed to describe the types of in-person dental visits during phase 1.

Methods: Data were collected from electronic health records on all in-person dental visits between 16 March and 18 May 2020. Information included date of visit, demographics, reason for the dental visit and treatment provided. Data are presented using descriptive statistics.

Results: During phase 1, 396 patients were seen: 263 at the BCCA, 58 at BCCH and 75 at the OHC. At the BCCA, the most frequent reason for an in-person dental visit was essential consultation related to oncology treatment. At BCCH, the most frequent reason was pediatric oral/maxillofacial trauma. At these 2 sites, the most frequent treatment provided was consultation. At the OHC, the most frequent reason for a visit was severe odontogenic pain and infection, and the most frequent treatment was oral surgery.

Conclusion: During phase 1, emergent and essential dental care was provided at 3 UBC-affiliated clinics. The most common reasons for an in-person visit were odontogenic infection, severe pain, trauma and essential consultations related to medical therapy. The most common treatments provided were consultations and oral surgery.

Aim: To evaluate level of compliance and reasons for non-compliance with measures to prevent dental injuries among ice hockey players.

Methods: Ice hockey players participated in an online, standardized, cross-sectional survey that addressed demographics, use and reasons for lack of use of facial and oral protective equipment and past oral injuries.

Results: Of the 169 survey respondents, 45.6% never wore a mouthguard, 23.1% always, 14.8% sometimes and 16.5% only when enforced. Major reasons for not wearing mouthguards included discomfort, impairment of function or seeming unnecessary. Over 57.4% of participants wore a full-face shield, 35.5% a half-face visor and 7.1% no facial equipment. Participants did not wear a full-face shield mostly because it hinders visibility. Past oral injury was reported by 31.4% of participants. The most common type of injury was laceration (61.5%), followed by contusions, broken and lost teeth. Of the injured, 57.7% were hit by a stick, 46.2% by a puck and 25% were checked by an opponent.

Conclusion: Compliance with wearing mouthguards and full-face shields is low because of issues surrounding player comfort, function and lack of visibility. Efforts should be made to work with hockey players and relevant industry to improve product design for protective measures and to enforce their use.

Practical implications: Reasons behind lack of protective equipment use by hockey players should be understood to enable dental professionals to communicate with patients and resolve challenges to the use of preventative measures to increase compliance and decrease incidence and severity of traumatic oral injuries.

Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second most prevalent neurodegenerative disease in North America, next to Alzheimer's disease. Patients who suffer from PD typically present with neuromuscular, cognitive, postural and psychiatric deficits, which make oral hygiene challenging, but extremely important. Although the cardinal signs of PD are movement-related, manifestations in the orofacial complex are ubiquitous. Weakened facial musculature, gaunt appearance, tremors of the tongue, lips and eyes, erratic mandibular movements, bruxism, xerostomia, sialorrhea, dysphagia, dysgeusia and glossitis are examples of the plethora of atypical orofacial findings associated with PD. Further complications, including angular cheilosis, attrition, temporomandibular joint disorders, burning mouth syndrome, hyposmia and hypophonia, may arise as a consequence of these orofacial manifestations. The effects of PD on the orofacial complex may result in poor nutritional habits, which can exacerbate weight loss and contribute to a negative impact on physical, psychosocial and emotional health. Dentists should be able to identify signs of PD systemically, including but not limited to the orofacial region, to optimize the management of PD patients. Here, we report practical recommendations for the medical and dental management of patients with PD in accordance with the most recently published clinical practice guidelines.

The field of artificial intelligence (AI) has experienced spectacular development and growth over the past two decades. With recent progress in digitized data acquisition, machine learning and computing infrastructure, AI applications are expanding into areas that were previously thought to be reserved for human experts. When applied to medicine and dentistry, AI has tremendous potential to improve patient care and revolutionize the health care field. In dentistry, AI is being investigated for a variety of purposes, specifically identification of normal and abnormal structures, diagnosis of diseases and prediction of treatment outcomes. This review describes some current and future applications of AI in dentistry.

Objectives: We examined the surface gloss and roughness of a dental composite and human enamel after brushing with a new bioactive glass (BCF201) additive designed to treat dentine hypersensitivity.

Methods: We prepared 2 cohorts of samples: a resin-based composite (RBC) and human enamel. Each cohort received 20 000 brushing cycles with Colgate Optic White Enamel (Colgate Optic), Sensodyne Whitening Repair and Protect (Sensodyne), Colgate Enamel Health Sensitivity Relief (Colgate-EN) with and without BCF201 added or Germiphene Gel 7 HT (Gel 7) with and without BCF201 added. The average gloss and roughness of the enamel and RBC surfaces were measured before brushing and after 20 000 back-and-forth brushing cycles. A linear regression function was applied to the gloss results, and the data were analyzed using ANOVA and a Tukey post-hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results: After 20 000 brushing cycles, the control (Gel 7) had no significant effect on the gloss or roughness of the RBC. However, the choice of dentifrice had a significant effect on both gloss and roughness (p < 0.001). With respect to RBC, after brushing, surface roughness was ranked from smoothest to roughest: Gel 7 = Gel 7 plus BCF201 > Colgate-EN plus BCF201 = Colgate Optic = Colgate-EN > Sensodyne. With respect to enamel, the smoothest to the roughest surfaces after brushing were: Gel 7 plus BCF201 = Sensodyne = Colgate-EN plus BCF201 > Gel 7 = Colgate Optic = Colgate-EN.

Conclusion: The bioactive glass additive had no adverse effect on the surface roughness or gloss of human enamel or RBC.

Significance: The addition of BCF201 appears to have a polishing effect on RBC and enamel and reduced the abrasive effects of Colgate-EN on RBC and enamel.