ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the dentists' knowledge about biosafety considering the SARS-CoV-2 and the risks of increasing the COVID-19 outbreak by dental practices during the pandemic in Brazil. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed by internet-based snowball sampling technique. A questionnaire with questions about different content was applied, and then analyzed the following two parameters: participants' Brazilian region and professional's specialty. Results: A total of 413 e-questionnaires from all Brazilian regions were considered valid. There were no significant differences among biosafety measures adopted by participants from different Brazilian regions (p≥0.05), except for those from North region, which have applied less previous oral antisepsis, temperature screening, and specific anamnesis tracking COVID-19 symptoms (p<0.05). The unique use of N95 mask was positively associated with North region (p<0.05). Expert participants of Groups 2 (oral surgery and correlate areas) and 4 (orthodontics, oral radiology and facial jaw orthopedics) were more updated than other ones (p<0.05). Conclusion: The biosafety protocols applied by participants were not adequate for the epidemiologic status of COVID-19 in each region of Brazil, from 13th May to 17th June 2020. Specialties linked to microbiology area or structured social networks have better applied preventive measures for COVID-19.

Objective: To evaluate the best strategy for pacifier disinfection methods. Material and Methods: The literature search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to find all relevant articles published over the past 20 years, based on PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers extracted data independently by using a standardized form. The following factors were recorded: country of study, type of study, pacifier material, sample number, microorganisms analyzed, decontamination methods used, method accessibility and results found. Results: A total of 121 articles were obtained from all databases. The selected documents underwent a final screening, resulting in 8 articles. The method of disinfection analyzed by the literature were: 3.5% neutral detergent, apple cider vinegar 70% spray, boiling water during 15 minutes, sodium hypochlorite 2.5, hydrogen peroxide 70% spray, chlorhexidine 0.12%, Brushtox®, sterile water and microwave. Conclusion: Because of the broad methods for pacifier disinfection and different levels of accessibility to disinfectant agents, the pacifier consensus for decontamination remains unclear. Although the disinfection methods are diverse, the methods suggested to its disinfection were identified and described in this article.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the best strategy for pacifier disinfection methods. Material and Methods: The literature search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scielo, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to find all relevant articles published over the past 20 years, based on PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers extracted data independently by using a standardized form. The following factors were recorded: country of study, type of study, pacifier material, sample number, microorganisms analyzed, decontamination methods used, method accessibility and results found. Results: A total of 121 articles were obtained from all databases. The selected documents underwent a final screening, resulting in 8 articles. The method of disinfection analyzed by the literature were: 3.5% neutral detergent, apple cider vinegar 70% spray, boiling water during 15 minutes, sodium hypochlorite 2.5, hydrogen peroxide 70% spray, chlorhexidine 0.12%, Brushtox®, sterile water and microwave. Conclusion: Because of the broad methods for pacifier disinfection and different levels of accessibility to disinfectant agents, the pacifier consensus for decontamination remains unclear. Although the disinfection methods are diverse, the methods suggested to its disinfection were identified and described in this article.

Abstract This study was aimed to provide a longitudinal overview of the subgingival bacterial microbiome using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique, in women in the second trimester of pregnancy (between 14 and 24 weeks), and 48 h and 8 weeks postpartum. Of 31 women evaluated during pregnancy, 24 returned for the 48-h and 18 for their 8-week exams postpartum. Probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, and presence of calculus were recorded. Subgingival plaque samples were collected, and FISH was used to identify the numbers of eight periodontal pathogens. Friedman test was used to compare differences between follow-up examinations, followed by a multiple comparison test for a post hoc pairwise comparison. Clinically, a significantly greater number of teeth with PD = 4–5 mm were found during pregnancy than on postpartum examinations. Microbial analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in cell count over the study period for Prevotella nigrescens. P. intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Porphyromonas gingivalis also decrease, although not significantly, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans increased. No significant changes were found for Fusobacterium nucleatum, Treponema denticola, or Tannerella forsythia. Our data demonstrate a change in the subgingival microbiota during pregnancy, at least for P. nigrescens.