25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Outbreak: An Overview on Dentistry

      editorial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Coronavirus disease 2019, also called COVID-19, is the latest infectious disease to rapidly develop worldwide. COVID-19 has as its etiologic agent the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): the 2019 coronavirus is different from SARS-CoV, but it has the same host receptor: human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). SARS-CoV-2 was first discovered in 2019 in Wuhan, China, unfortunately spreading globally, resulting in the 2019–2020 pandemic, as declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The infection started in Asia, but it has rapidly spread across the world: according to the WHO, this is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus. Against this landscape, the treatment of COVID-19 is based on containment measures: in China and South Korea, the severe application of such interventions has regularly and drastically reduced new cases, and this experience shows that a reversion of epidemic growth is possible in the short-term. On the other hand, in Italy, the reported cases have grown impressively over time, leading to the country obtaining a prominent position in the international scenario of the infected patients. This emerging pandemic and its severe outbreak in the Italian population have induced the Italian Government first and then the European Union to promote drastic impact measures to “flatten the curve” of the COVID-19 infection and in turn avoid health systems (in particular, intensive care units) being overwhelmed, resulting in fewer deaths [1]. The limitation of people circulating outside their home, social distancing, the cessation of almost all working activities and the request to the population to use protective masks and gloves all have the aim of minimizing the likelihood that people who are not infected come into contact with others who are already infected and probably still asymptomatic [2]. As always happens, healthcare professionals have been immediately involved in the national emergency, working hard, often day and night: unfortunately, small numbers of them have also become infected, and some have tragically died. Dentists are often the first line of diagnosis, as they work in close contact with patients. On 15 March 2020, the New York Times published an article entitled “The Workers Who Face the Greatest Coronavirus Risk”, where an impressive schematic figure described that dentists are the workers most exposed to the risk of being affected by COVID-19, much more than nurses and general physicians [3]. To take significant actions against this harmful disease, the American Dental Association updated its webpage in March, including a link to frequently asked questions from member dentists covering topics such as personal protective equipment and patient communications. Recently, an interesting paper written by researchers from Wuhan University School and Hospital of Stomatology was published with several recommendations for dentists and dental students to manage COVID-19 patients [4]. Dentists have been recommended to take several personal protection measures and avoid or minimize operations that can produce droplets or aerosols; moreover, the use of saliva ejectors with a low volume or high volume can reduce the production of droplets and aerosols. Taking into consideration the severity of the pandemic COVID-19, and in the light of the massive commitment of several dental associations and the most prestigious dental journals, it is essential to give clear and easy guidelines to manage dental patients and to make working dentists safe from any risk. A fundamental concept is that the transmission of the virus is mainly through inhalation/ingestion/direct mucous contact with saliva droplets; it is also critical to remember that the virus can survive on hands, objects or surfaces that were exposed to infected saliva in the previous nine days [4,5]. Since the viral load contained in the human saliva is very high, rinses with antiseptic mouthwashes can only reduce the infectious amount but are not able to eliminate the virus in the saliva [4,5]. In this light, a few important concepts would be useful to briefly report and discuss here. The most recommended guidelines indicate that dentists should avoid the scheduling of any patient: only such urgent dental diseases can be considered during the COVID-19 outbreak. This action will drastically limit the interpersonal contact, the waiting time of patients in dental cabinets and, in general, the conditions predisposing patients to be infected. When the dentists treat patients, they should intercept the potentially infected person before they reach the operating areas; for example, those with a fever measuring >37.5 °C and the posing of a few questions about the patient’s general health status in the last 7 days, and about the risk of having been in contact with other infected persons. The management practice of the operating area should be quite similar to what happens with other patients affected by infectious and highly contagious diseases. As often as possible, the staff should work at an adequate distance from patients; furthermore, handpieces must be equipped with anti-reflux devices to avoid contaminations, improving the risk of cross-infections. Finally, during the operating sessions, the dentist should prefer procedures reducing the quantity of aerosol produced in the environment [4,5]. Personal prevention, both for health personnel and for patients, must be associated with the prevention of the spread of the virus through environmental remediation. In particular, due to the high proliferation of the virus in the particles exhaled by coughing and sneezing, every surface in the waiting room must be considered at risk; therefore, in addition to providing adequate periodic air exchange, all surfaces, chairs, magazines, and doors that come into contact with healthcare professionals and patients must be considered “potentially infected”. It may be useful to make an alcoholic disinfectant and masks available to patients in the waiting room. The entire air conditioning system must be sanitized very frequently [4,5]. A recent study indicates that copper and paper can allow the virus to survive for 4 to over 24 hours. On the other hand, the infectious charge can be drastically reduced only after at least 48 hours for steel and 72 hours for plastic [6]. Therefore, the virus remains longer on steel instruments, or disposable material exposed to the flows of contaminated air, than in a magazine in the waiting room. In light of this reflection, the substantial action to be taken is to promote maximum hand and surface hygiene, given that the virus is completely inactivated by water, soap, and other detergents. In conclusion, the significant limitation of clinical and surgical activities in the medical and dental sector has represented a very impactful measure on the economy of the sector. Nevertheless, this drastic intervention has made it possible to protect the health and safety of citizens and contain the expansion of the coronavirus. Therefore, the policies and measure packages adopted by governments are addressed to all dental associations, stating clear guidelines to prevent and to control COVID-19 infection in oral diagnosis and treatment in daily practice until a vaccine or a drug becomes available.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1

          To the Editor: A novel human coronavirus that is now named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (formerly called HCoV-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 and is now causing a pandemic. 1 We analyzed the aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 and compared it with SARS-CoV-1, the most closely related human coronavirus. 2 We evaluated the stability of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 in aerosols and on various surfaces and estimated their decay rates using a Bayesian regression model (see the Methods section in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org). SARS-CoV-2 nCoV-WA1-2020 (MN985325.1) and SARS-CoV-1 Tor2 (AY274119.3) were the strains used. Aerosols (<5 μm) containing SARS-CoV-2 (105.25 50% tissue-culture infectious dose [TCID50] per milliliter) or SARS-CoV-1 (106.75-7.00 TCID50 per milliliter) were generated with the use of a three-jet Collison nebulizer and fed into a Goldberg drum to create an aerosolized environment. The inoculum resulted in cycle-threshold values between 20 and 22, similar to those observed in samples obtained from the upper and lower respiratory tract in humans. Our data consisted of 10 experimental conditions involving two viruses (SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1) in five environmental conditions (aerosols, plastic, stainless steel, copper, and cardboard). All experimental measurements are reported as means across three replicates. SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A). SARS-CoV-2 was more stable on plastic and stainless steel than on copper and cardboard, and viable virus was detected up to 72 hours after application to these surfaces (Figure 1A), although the virus titer was greatly reduced (from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter of medium after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.7 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). The stability kinetics of SARS-CoV-1 were similar (from 103.4 to 100.7 TCID50 per milliliter after 72 hours on plastic and from 103.6 to 100.6 TCID50 per milliliter after 48 hours on stainless steel). On copper, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 4 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours. On cardboard, no viable SARS-CoV-2 was measured after 24 hours and no viable SARS-CoV-1 was measured after 8 hours (Figure 1A). Both viruses had an exponential decay in virus titer across all experimental conditions, as indicated by a linear decrease in the log10TCID50 per liter of air or milliliter of medium over time (Figure 1B). The half-lives of SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1 were similar in aerosols, with median estimates of approximately 1.1 to 1.2 hours and 95% credible intervals of 0.64 to 2.64 for SARS-CoV-2 and 0.78 to 2.43 for SARS-CoV-1 (Figure 1C, and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). The half-lives of the two viruses were also similar on copper. On cardboard, the half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was longer than that of SARS-CoV-1. The longest viability of both viruses was on stainless steel and plastic; the estimated median half-life of SARS-CoV-2 was approximately 5.6 hours on stainless steel and 6.8 hours on plastic (Figure 1C). Estimated differences in the half-lives of the two viruses were small except for those on cardboard (Figure 1C). Individual replicate data were noticeably “noisier” (i.e., there was more variation in the experiment, resulting in a larger standard error) for cardboard than for other surfaces (Fig. S1 through S5), so we advise caution in interpreting this result. We found that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 was similar to that of SARS-CoV-1 under the experimental circumstances tested. This indicates that differences in the epidemiologic characteristics of these viruses probably arise from other factors, including high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract and the potential for persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 to shed and transmit the virus while asymptomatic. 3,4 Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days (depending on the inoculum shed). These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, 5 and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2)

            Estimation of the prevalence and contagiousness of undocumented novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) infections is critical for understanding the overall prevalence and pandemic potential of this disease. Here we use observations of reported infection within China, in conjunction with mobility data, a networked dynamic metapopulation model and Bayesian inference, to infer critical epidemiological characteristics associated with SARS-CoV2, including the fraction of undocumented infections and their contagiousness. We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions. Per person, the transmission rate of undocumented infections was 55% of documented infections ([46%–62%]), yet, due to their greater numbers, undocumented infections were the infection source for 79% of documented cases. These findings explain the rapid geographic spread of SARS-CoV2 and indicate containment of this virus will be particularly challenging.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice

              A novel β-coronavirus (2019-nCoV) caused severe and even fetal pneumonia explored in a seafood market of Wuhan city, Hubei province, China, and rapidly spread to other provinces of China and other countries. The 2019-nCoV was different from SARS-CoV, but shared the same host receptor the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The natural host of 2019-nCoV may be the bat Rhinolophus affinis as 2019-nCoV showed 96.2% of whole-genome identity to BatCoV RaTG13. The person-to-person transmission routes of 2019-nCoV included direct transmission, such as cough, sneeze, droplet inhalation transmission, and contact transmission, such as the contact with oral, nasal, and eye mucous membranes. 2019-nCoV can also be transmitted through the saliva, and the fetal–oral routes may also be a potential person-to-person transmission route. The participants in dental practice expose to tremendous risk of 2019-nCoV infection due to the face-to-face communication and the exposure to saliva, blood, and other body fluids, and the handling of sharp instruments. Dental professionals play great roles in preventing the transmission of 2019-nCoV. Here we recommend the infection control measures during dental practice to block the person-to-person transmission routes in dental clinics and hospitals.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                22 March 2020
                March 2020
                : 17
                : 6
                : 2094
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy
                [2 ]Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neurosciences and Sense Organs, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70124 Bari, Italy; danila.devito@ 123456uniba.it (D.D.V.); sanrengo@ 123456unina.it (S.R.); marco.tatullo@ 123456tecnologicasrl.com (M.T.)
                [3 ]Marrelli Health—Tecnologica Research Institute, Biomedical Section, Street E. Fermi, 88900 Crotone, Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: gspagnuo@ 123456unina.it ; Tel.: +39-081-7462-092
                [†]

                All the authors have equally contributed to this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3769-9786
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7340-0708
                Article
                ijerph-17-02094
                10.3390/ijerph17062094
                7143628
                32235685
                a9de2e29-5fab-4848-9366-bf0ff62b4e7a
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 March 2020
                : 20 March 2020
                Categories
                Editorial

                Public health
                covid-19,dentistry,sars-cov-2,infection,coronavirus
                Public health
                covid-19, dentistry, sars-cov-2, infection, coronavirus

                Comments

                Comment on this article