Resumo A Organização Mundial da Saúde declarou a disseminação generalizada do SARS-CoV-2 e sua doença associada (COVID-19) uma emergência de saúde pública. O teste padrão ouro para detecção do vírus é o RT-PCR, realizado a partir de amostras de swab nasofaríngeo (NPS). No entanto, esse exame pode ser desconfortável para o paciente e requer treinamento específico e vestimenta do profissional de saúde responsável pela coleta da amostra. Portanto, a busca por formas alternativas de coleta de amostras que possam ser utilizadas no diagnóstico de COVID-19 é relevante. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar os resultados obtidos em amostras de NPS e saliva. Amostras de NPS e saliva foram coletadas de 189 pacientes ambulatoriais sintomáticos com suspeita de COVID-19, que procuraram a Policlínica Piquet Carneiro. A extração de RNA foi realizada com o kit Bio-Gene DNA / RNA Viral Extraction (Bioclin®) e as reações em tempo real da reação em cadeia da polimerase-transcriptase reversa (RT-PCR) usaram o kit Molecular SARS-CoV-2 (E / RP) (Bio-Manguinhos). Os resultados indicaram que 142 apresentaram resultado não detectável (ND), enquanto 47 apresentaram resultado detectável (D). Entre os 142 "ND", 137 (94,4%) amostras de saliva obtiveram o mesmo resultado, enquanto 5 amostras (3,4%) foram "D". Dentre as 47 amostras de swab "D", 35 (74,4%) apresentaram o mesmo resultado nas amostras de saliva. A sensibilidade do teste de saliva foi de 0,74 e a especificidade foi de 0,97. O valor preditivo positivo foi de 0,88, enquanto o valor preditivo negativo foi de 0,92. Os resultados mostraram que a detecção de Sars-CoV-2 em amostras de saliva apresentou alta sensibilidade e especificidade quando comparada com swabs nasofaríngeos.

Abstract The World Health Organization has declared the widespread spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its associated disease (COVID-19) a public health emergency. The standard gold test for detecting the virus is the RT-PCR, performed from nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples. However, this test may be uncomfortable for the patient and requires specific training and attire from the health professional responsible for collecting the sample. Therefore, the search for alternative ways to collect samples that may be used in the diagnosis of COVID-19 is relevant. This study aimed to compare the results obtained from NPS and saliva samples. NPS and saliva samples were collected from 189 symptomatic outpatients suspected of COVID-19, who came to Piquet Carneiro Polyclinic. RNA extraction was performed using the Bio-Gene DNA/RNA Viral Extraction kit (Bioclin®). Real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) reactions used the Molecular SARS-CoV-2 (E / RP) kit (Bio-Manguinhos). The results indicated that 142 showed a non-detectable result (ND), while 47 showed a detectable result (D). Among the 142 "ND", 137 (94.4%) saliva samples obtained the same result, while 5 samples (3.4%) were "D". Among the 47 "D" swab samples, 35 (74.4%) showed the same result in the saliva samples. The sensitivity of the saliva test was 0.74 and the specificity was 0.97. The positive predictive value was 0.88 while the negative predictive value was 0.92. The results showed that detection of Sars-CoV-2 using saliva samples showed high sensitivity and specificity compared to nasopharyngeal swabs.

The present study aimed to assess the prevalence of apical periodontitis (AP) in an urban Brazilian population according to gender, age group and tooth type. Data were collected from clinical files containing the medical and dental histories and periapical radiographs of 1,126 patients treated at the School of Dentistry at Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro between March 2000 and December 2010. A total of 15,724 periapical radiographs were evaluated. All the radiographs were evaluated by two independent, previously calibrated endodontists (kappa = 0.88). Periapical areas on the radiographs were classified as N (normal) or AR (apical radiolucency). The frequency of AP and the 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) were calculated according to gender, age group and tooth type. Differences between groups were calculated using the Z-test at a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). AP was present in 7.87% of the samples, with 16.70% occurring on previously endodontically treated teeth and 44.65% occurring on teeth referred for endodontic treatment (TR-RCT). The frequency of AP was higher among females (64%) than among males (35%). The central and lateral maxillary incisors were the most frequently affected teeth. The frequency of AP was higher among individuals between 30 and 49 years of age. In this population, AP was more prevalent among females and among individuals between 30 and 49 years of age, and the central and lateral maxillary incisors were the most frequently affected teeth.