MATERIALS & METHODS: The participants included a conveniently selected sample of dentists (N = 126; Males = 65; Females = 61). The participants' anthropometric measurements/blood sample analysis were carried out and they completed a self-administered questionnaire. Data analysis included demographics, gender/age wise comparison using SPSS (p 0.05) were observed for cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL. However, significant difference (p = 0.00) was found for the fasting glucose level (Males = 5.69±1.49; Females = 4.94±0.42). Overall mean scoring (3.00±1.11) for the stress showed that the participants fall into the average/moderate level of stress category (Males = 3.16±1.02; Females = 2.83±1.08). Almost two third (68.26%) of the participant's responded that they were under some kind of stress.
CONCLUSIONS: MS was found to be less frequent among the dentists working in the city of Riyadh. Overall, the dentists were under moderate level of occupational stress, with male dentists being more prone to work related stress.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021286108) based on PRISMA guidelines. Cross-sectional articles on the dental students' and dental practitioners' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine published between March 2020 to October 2021 were searched in eight online databases. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was employed to analyse the risk of bias (RoB) of each article, whereas the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendation tool was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Data were analysed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model based on a single-arm approach.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included of which three studies focused on dental students and seven studies focused on dental practitioners. Four studies were deemed to exhibit moderate RoB and the remaining showed low RoB. All the studies demonstrated Level 3 evidence. Single-arm meta-analysis revealed that dental practitioners had a high level of vaccination acceptance (81.1%) than dental students (60.5%). A substantial data heterogeneity was observed with the overall I2 ranging from 73.65% and 96.86%. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that dental practitioners from the Middle East and high-income countries showed greater (p < 0.05) acceptance levels, while meta-regression showed that the sample size of each study had no bearing on the degree of data heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high degree of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among dental practitioners, dental students still demonstrated poor acceptance. These findings highlighted that evidence-based planning with effective approaches is warranted to enhance the knowledge and eradicate vaccination hesitancy, particularly among dental students.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to assess knowledge and awareness regarding needle stick and sharp injury among dental personnel and compared the knowledge and awareness level about needle stick injuries between dental professionals and dental supporting staff working at the School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from March 2016 to March 2017. The total sample included 112 registered dental personnel including dental professionals (lecturers, dental officers, and postgraduate students) and dental supportive staff (including staff nurses and dental surgery assistant) who were selected from the School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia at Kelantan District of Malaysia. Data were collected by a structured questionnaire.
RESULTS: In our study 60.7% respondents answered correctly for all the statements regarding knowledge and 51.8% of the respondents answered correctly for the statements regarding awareness on needle stick and sharp injury. No significant difference of knowledge level has been observed between the dental professionals and dental supportive staff (p
AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and practices of endodontists and paediatric dentists regarding RET.
DESIGN: A survey was conducted among endodontists and paediatric dentists from 13 countries. A number of factors were evaluated, including frequency of RET application, followed guidelines, disinfection techniques, intracanal medication type, scaffold type, preferred coronal seal material, and follow-up period.
RESULTS: Among the 1394 respondents, 853 (61.2%) and 541 (38.8%) were endodontists and paediatric dentists, respectively. Almost half (43%) of participants have not performed RET yet. The American Association of Endodontics guideline (47.3%) was selected as the primary source for the clinical protocol. The most frequently selected irrigant solution was 1.5%-3% NaOCl at the first (26.1%) and second (13.6%) sessions. A blood clot (68.7%) and MTA (61.9%) were the most frequently selected scaffold type and coronal barrier. Most participants preferred a 6-month follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: According to this survey, deviations exist from current RET guidelines regarding all aspects evaluated. Standardizing clinical protocols and adhering to available guidelines would help to ensure more predictable outcomes.