ABSTRACT As the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted mainly through droplets, sneezes and aerosols, there is a high risk of transmission during dental procedures. This report describes measures that can be adopted by oral healthcare personnel to minimize the risk of cross-contamination in clinical practice during the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
RESUMO Como o SARS-CoV-2, que causa síndrome respiratória aguda grave, é transmitido principalmente por gotículas, espirros e aerossóis, há um alto risco de transmissão durante os procedimentos odontológicos. Este relatório descreve os passos que podem ser tomados pelo pessoal de saúde oral para minimizar o risco de contaminação cruzada na prática clínica durante a actual pandemia do SARS-CoV-2.
RESUMEN Dado que el SARS-CoV-2, causante de síndrome respiratorio agudo severo, se transmite principalmente por medio de gotitas, estornudos y aerosoles, existe un alto riesgo de transmisión durante los procedimientos dentales. En este informe se describen las medidas que puede adoptar el personal de salud bucodental para reducir al mínimo el riesgo de contaminación cruzada en la práctica clínica durante la actual pandemia por SARS-CoV-2.
Abstract Pain due to administration of local anesthetics is the primary reason for patients' fear and anxiety, and various methods are used to minimize it. This study aimed to measure the degree of pain during administration of anesthesia and determine the latency time and duration of pulpal anesthesia using two anesthetic methods in the maxilla. Materials and Methods: A randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial was conducted with 41 volunteers who required class I restorations in the maxillary first molars. Local anesthesia was administered with a needleless jet injection system (experimental group) or with a carpule syringe (control) using a 30-gauge short needle. The method of anesthesia and laterality of the maxilla were randomized. A pulp electric tester measured the latency time and duration of anesthesia in the second molar. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure the degree of pain during the anesthetic method. Data were tabulated and then analyzed by a statistician. The t-test was used to analyze the differences between the groups for basal electrical stimulation. Duration of anesthesia and degree of pain were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. A 5% significance level was considered. Results: There was no statistical difference in the basal electrical stimulation threshold (mA) and degree of pain between the two methods of anesthesia (p>0.05). Latency time was 2 minutes for all subjects. The duration of pulpal anesthesia showed no statistical difference (minutes) between the two methods (p<0.001), with a longer duration for the traditional method of anesthesia (median of 40 minutes). Conclusions: The two anesthetics methods did not differ concerning the pain experienced during anesthesia. Latency lasted 2 minutes for all subjects; the traditional infiltration anesthesia resulted in a longer anesthetic duration compared with the needleless jet injection.