Aim: To analyse various pain scales commonly used to determine the effect of different pain control methods during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Study Design. A comparative cross-sectional study performed on a sample of 60 patients (n = 60) including 14 males and 46 females who were ready for debonding and who were divided into three groups, i.e., finger pressure (FP), elastomeric wafer (EW), and stress relief (SR).

Materials and Methods: A 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to record the pain intensity for each tooth. Another scale known as Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used to evaluate the patient's general attitude towards pain perception. The armamentarium and operator were kept same for all the patients. Statistical analysis used was the Kruskal-Wallis test, used for intergroup and intragroup comparison of pain scores.

Results: Lowest total pain score was recorded in the FP group (P=0.043) on intergroup comparison, while on intragroup comparison, higher pain scores were recorded in lower anterior region (P=0.02) in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the pain scores reported by the male and female subjects.

METHODS: A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed at Najran University and provided to the participants for data collection. The data collected included information on risk perception and incorporation of measures for protection against COVID-19 to gauge the attitude of dentists during this period. Also, clinical implementation of various protective measures was reviewed.

RESULTS: Of the n = 322 dentists that answered the questions, 50% were general dentists and 28.9% were dentists working at specialist clinics, while the remaining 21.1% of dentists were employed in academic institutions. Among the newer additions to the clinic, 36.3% of dentists answered that they had added atomizers to their practices, followed by 26.4% of dentists that had incorporated the use of UV lamps for sterilization. We found that 18.9% dentists were using HEPA filters in their clinics, while 9.9% of dentists were making use of fumigation devices to control the risk of infection. One-way ANOVA was also carried out to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.049) between groups of dentists utilizing HEPA filters, UV lamps, atomizers, and fumigation devices to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 across their workplaces.

Methods: The articles were identified through a search on Web of Science (WoS), property of Clarivate Analytics database published on endodontic microbiology. The citation information of the selected articles was recorded. The Journal of Endodontics, International Endodontic Journal, Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology, Dental Traumatology, and Australian Endodontic Journal were searched in the search title. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed using a statistical software package SPSS. Statistical analysis was performed using Shapiro-Wilk, Kruskal-Wallis, Post hoc, Mann-Kendall trend, and Spearman-rank tests.

Results: The 50 most cited articles were published from 1965 to 2012 with citation count varying from 1065 to 103 times. The total citation counts of articles recorded were 11,525 (WoS), 12,602 (Elseviers' Scopus), and 28,871 (Google Scholar). The most prolific years in terms of publications were 2001, 2002, and 2003, with five publications each, followed by 2005 with four. The year with most citations was 1998, with 1,330 citations, followed by 1965 and 2001, with 1,065 and 1,015 citations, respectively. A total of 136 authors contributed to the top 50 most cited articles with 27 corresponding institutions from 12 different countries. The most common methodological design was in vitro study, followed by clinic-laboratory study, literature review, systematic review and meta-analysis, and animal study.