Needlestick injuries in dentistry: Time to revisit

BackgroundBlood-borne pathogens (BBPs) are infectious microorganisms that are found in human blood and can cause diseases in humans. Health care workers such as physicians, surgeons, nurses, dentists, dental students, dental assistants, laboratory technicians, personnel handling infectious waste, and other health care employees are at increased risk of exposure to these pathogens. Percutaneous injuries from needles or other sharp objects are the major sources of BBPs in the workplace. Needlestick injuries (NSIs) have the most potential to transmit and have the easiest mode of transmission of BBPs.Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE-Ovid) for studies and articles focused on the various aspects of NSIs, their possible causes, prevention, and management protocols.ResultsThere is a lack of literature on the global prevalence of NSIs among dental practitioners and underreporting of NSIs by clinicians. The authors also found that dental students and inexperienced practitioners were the most vulnerable. They found apparent inconsistencies in guidelines and recommendations from various regulatory and statutory agencies in charge of limiting and managing NSIs.ConclusionThe most significant occupational risks for health care workers globally are NSIs. Dentists are recognized as one of the high-risk groups for exposure to NSIs. Although the reporting rate was noticeably low, the frequency of NSIs among dental students was alarmingly high.Practical ImplicationsAppropriate and succinct training of dental health care workers is crucial for prevention and management of NSIs. It is recommended that dentists familiarize themselves with recommendations from such agencies and organizations as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and American Dental Association.     

Mercury levels in urine and head hair of dental personnel

As dentists and their assistants are usually exposed to mercury in their clinical practices. The objective was to investigate the mercury level in these dental personnel. Urine and head hair samples were collected from 201 dental personnel and 57 unexposed controls for mercury analysis. The mercury content was analyzed by using cold vapour atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The results showed that mercury levels in the urine and head hair of dental personnel were significantly higher than in the controls (P less than 0.01). The urine mercury concentration of the unexposed controls ranged from 0.1-10.0 micrograms/l (means = 2.6 +/- 0.29 micrograms/l). The highest urine mercury level was found in the group of dental assistant (means = 17.1 +/- 2.44 micrograms/l). The mean urine mercury levels found in dentists, dental students and dental technicians were 10.1 +/- 1.42, 11.1 +/- 1.69 and 3.2 +/- 0.69 micrograms/l respectively. The amounts of urine mercury from dental assistants, dentists and dental students were 81.0%, 38.2% and 43.5% higher than the threshold limit value respectively. The mean head hair mercury concentration of unexposed controls ranged from 0.3-12.2 micrograms/g (means = 2.8 +/- 0.36 micrograms/g). The highest head hair mercury concentration was found in the group of dental assistant and 6th year dental students (means = 10.1 +/- 0.84 and 10.5 +/- 3.2 micrograms/g). The mean head hair mercury levels found in dental assistants, dentists, dental students and dental technicians were 10.1 +/- 0.84, 7.5 +/- 1.2, 6.5 +/- 1.54 and 2.8 +/- 0.53 micrograms/g respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Serological examinations for antibodies against Legionella species in dental personnel

Serum samples from 107 dentists, dental assistants, and dental technicians were examined with an indirect immunofluorescence test for antibodies to Legionella pneumophila SG1-SG6, L. micdadei, L. bozemanii, L. dumoffii, L. gormanii, L. jordanis, and L. longbeachae SG1 + 2. Thirty-six (34%) employees from dental personnel from 13 practices showed a positive reaction for antibodies to Legionella pneumophila. Only five samples (5%) from a control group (non-medical workers) were positive. Of the 36 positive serum samples, 13 (36%) reacted with Serogroup 6, 12 with SG 1 (33%), 12 with SG 5 (33%), and three with SG 4 (8%), and eight samples were positive for antibodies to other Legionella species. Dentists had the highest prevalence (50%) of L. pneumophila antibodies, followed by assistants (38%) and technicians (20%). These results indicate that dental personnel are at an increased risk of legionella infection.     

Willingness and ability of oral health care workers to work during the COVID-19 pandemic

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt dental practice in the United States. Oral health care workers play an integral role in societal health, yet little is known about their willingness and ability to work during a pandemic.MethodsOral health care workers completed a survey distributed on dental-specific Facebook groups during an 8-week period (May 1-June 30, 2020) about their willingness and ability to work during the COVID-19 pandemic, barriers to working, and willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsFour hundred and fifty-nine surveys were returned. Only 53% of dentists, 33% of dental hygienists, 29% of dental assistants, and 48% of nonclinical staff members would be able to work a normal shift during the pandemic, and even fewer (50%, 18%, 17%, and 38%, respectively) would be willing to work a normal shift. Barriers included caring for family, a second job, and personal obligations, and these were faced by dental assistants and hygienists. Dentists were more likely than hygienists (P < .001), assistants (P < .001), and nonclinical staff members (P = .014) to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.ConclusionsOral health care workers have a decreased ability and willingness to report to work during a pandemic, and dentists are significantly more able and willing to work than hygienists and assistants. Dentists are more likely than staff to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.Practical ImplicationsThe results of this study may help inform future initiatives of dental workforce readiness during a pandemic. Dentists should be prepared to discuss alterations to standard operating procedures to allay staff members’ fears and improve retention rates during pandemics, allowing for improved access to oral health care.     

Estimating COVID-19 prevalence and infection control practices among US dentists

BackgroundUnderstanding the risks associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during oral health care delivery and assessing mitigation strategies for dental offices are critical to improving patient safety and access to oral health care.MethodsThe authors invited licensed US dentists practicing primarily in private practice or public health to participate in a web-based survey in June 2020. Dentists from every US state (n = 2,195) answered questions about COVID-19–associated symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 infection, mental and physical health conditions, and infection control procedures used in their primary dental practices.ResultsMost of the dentists (82.2%) were asymptomatic for 1 month before administration of the survey; 16.6% reported being tested for SARS-CoV-2; and 3.7%, 2.7%, and 0% tested positive via respiratory, blood, and salivary samples, respectively. Among those not tested, 0.3% received a probable COVID-19 diagnosis from a physician. In all, 20 of the 2,195 respondents had been infected with SARS-CoV-2; weighted according to age and location to approximate all US dentists, 0.9% (95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 1.5) had confirmed or probable COVID-19. Dentists reported symptoms of depression (8.6%) and anxiety (19.5%). Enhanced infection control procedures were implemented in 99.7% of dentists’ primary practices, most commonly disinfection, COVID-19 screening, social distancing, and wearing face masks. Most practicing dentists (72.8%) used personal protective equipment according to interim guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.ConclusionsCOVID-19 prevalence and testing positivity rates were low among practicing US dentists. This indicates that the current infection control recommendations may be sufficient to prevent infection in dental settings.Practical ImplicationsDentists have enhanced their infection control practices in response to COVID-19 and may benefit from greater availability of personal protective equipment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04423770.     

Dentists’ Perceptions of Their SARS-CoV-2 Risk and Infection Control Needs

ObjectiveRapid worldwide dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 has prompted dental professionals to optimise their infection control procedures. To help identify areas of opportunity for protecting dentists and their patients, the aim of this investigation was to analyse Mexican dentists’ early perceptions of their risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and their need for comprehensive infection control education.MethodsThis cross-sectional survey was conducted from May 9 to June 3, 2020, during the social distancing phase in Mexico. The survey adhered to relevant guidelines for ethical research design. The questionnaire was designed with Google Surveys and applied online in Spanish. The questionnaire included items on demographics and clinical specialisation. To obtain time-sensitive perceptions, statements were preceded by “While SARS-CoV-2 circulates in the community and new COVID-19 cases are reported”; responses were collected in a 5-point Likert-type scale.ResultsThe survey's link received 1524 “clicks.” Over 25 days, 996 dentists participated (39% men; 89% working in Mexico and 11% in other Spanish-speaking Latin American countries). Most participants (73%) fully agreed that “Looking after patients will pose a risk for the dentist.” Total agreement was more common (P = .0001) amongst dentists in Mexico (76%) than amongst those in other countries (53%). Knowing someone with COVID-19 was more common amongst Mexican dentists (P = .0008). The perceived need for enhanced infection control procedures increased with age (P = .0001). Forty-nine percent totally agreed that they sterilise dental handpieces between patients. One-third expressed total agreement that everyone in their clinic was trained in infection control.ConclusionsAmongst this nonprobabilistic self-selected sample of dentists, age and country of work influenced their perceptions about occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and infection control needs. This survey revealed areas of opportunity to improve infection control education and training for dental professionals.     

Use of nanomaterials in dentistry: covariates of risk and benefit perceptions among dentists and dental hygienists in Norway

Abstract

Objective: Focusing dentists and dental hygienists employed in the Public Dental Health Services (PDHSs) in Norway, this study set out to assess whether socio-demographic factors, familiarity with nanotechnology and social trust are associated with dental health care workers’ perceived risks and benefits of use of nanomaterials in dentistry and whether those associations varied according to professional status. It was hypothesized that increased knowledge, trust in stakeholders and familiarity with nanomaterials would decrease the risk and increase benefit perceptions among dental health care workers.

Methods: Electronic questionnaires were administered to a census of 1792 dentists and dental hygienists.

Results: About 64% and 69% of respondents perceived respectively, risk and benefits associated with use of nanomaterials. Multiple variable logistic regression revealed that dentists were more likely than hygienists to perceive risks (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.3) and benefits (OR = 3.6, 95% CI 2.1–6.2). Having experience with dental nanomaterials (OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.7) and feeling safe (OR = 6.6, 95% CI 3.1–14.2) increased perceived benefits. Having moderate or much correct knowledge about nanotechnology (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.5–3.5) increased the likelihood of perceived risk.

Conclusions: Policy makers should consider the factors that influence dental health care workers’ risk and benefit perceptions associated with the use of nanomaterials in dentistry.     

Urgent Dental Care During Italian Lockdown: A Cross-sectional Survey

IntroductionOn March 9, 2020, the Italian government imposed a nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus disease 2019. Oral health services were limited to only essential services. Nonurgent treatments were postponed. This study described the management of urgent dental care in northern Italy during the lockdown, with a particular focus on the province of Brescia.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to Italian dentists at the end of the lockdown (May 3, 2020). A total of 1407 dentists answered the survey.ResultsA total of 1205 dentists were included. Most of the respondents were dental owners (73.6%). About 79.7% of the dentists handled urgencies during the lockdown. The number of urgencies treated weekly was lower than that generally handled before the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak (P < .001). Many dentists (81.2%) provided telephone consultations to evaluate symptoms. Pulpitis and abscesses were the most common urgencies (44.7% and 40.2%, respectively). Furthermore, 95% of dentists wore masks, protective eyewear, and surgical gloves while delivering nonpostponable treatments. The filtering facepiece 2 mask was used by 41.8% and 41.7% of owners and dental assistants, respectively. Financial concerns, risk of contagion, and personal protective equipment supply were indicated as the main current concerns.ConclusionsOur survey showed that Italian dentists took protective measures during the lockdown, thus minimizing the risk of contagion for dental health care personnel and patients. Many precautionary guidelines are now available, but a high uncertainty persists about dental health delivery during the pandemic.     

Evaluating factors that affect the shade-matching ability of dentists,dental staff members and laypeople

BackgroundThe authors conducted a study to evaluate the influence of dentists' and nondentists' experience, age, sex, eye color and use of eyeglasses or contact lenses on tooth shade–matching ability.MethodsThe authors included 120 participants in this study conducted in Istanbul (periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons, orthodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, prosthodontists, restorative dentists, general dentists in private practice, dental technicians, dental assistants, dental assistant students and laypeople). The authors assigned participants to one of three groups: group 1 was composed of prosthodontists, restorative dentists and dental technicians; group 2 consisted of other dental specialists and general dentists; and group 3 included dental assistants, dental assistant students and laypeople. The authors asked participants to match the shades of three artificial maxillary right central incisors (Vitapan acrylic teeth [shades 2L1.5, 1M2, 2R1.5], Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sa?ckingen, Germany) by using a shade guide system (Vita Toothguide 3D-Master, Vita Zahnfabrik). They calculated shade matching for the three color components (value, hue, chroma) and analyzed the results by using a χ² test.ResultsThe rate of success in matching the shade for IM2 was 53.3 percent for participants in group 1, 30 percent for participants in group 2 and 20 percent for participants in group 3 (P = .017). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups for shades 2L1.5 and 2R1.5. Professional experience (P = .003) and age (P = .027) were associated with shade-matching success for tooth shade 2L1.5 only. The results showed no statistically significant differences with respect to sex, eye color or use of eyeglasses or contact lenses.ConclusionsDental care professionals who routinely performed restorative procedures matched the shades better than did participants in other groups. Professional experience was associated positively with the outcome, while sex, eye color and use of eyeglasses or contact lenses did not have any effect on shade-matching results.Clinical ImplicationsTo improve shade-matching skills, clinicians should participate in hands-on courses, continuing education classes and other training programs.     

Oral health education in Finnish schools

Abstract – The public system of oral health care in Finland, as in the other Nordic countries, is responsible for arranging oral health education for school classes. In this study the coverage and the personnel implementing these lessons in Finnish schools were assessed, A questionnaire was sent to all health centers ( n = 214). The response rate was 87%. A total of over 23 000 oral health lessons were arranged in schools during the year studied. Coverage was high in primary schools, lower in secondary schools and lower still in high schools. The main implementers of the lessons were dental assistants. The conclusions of the study were: 1) coverage of teenagers should be increased, 2) the role of dental hygienists and dentists in implementing the program should be greater, and 3) oral health personnel and teachers should cooperate more actively.     

Hepatitis B prevalence and infection control among dental health care workers in a community in South Korea

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to investigate the prevalence of hepatitis B vaccine and use of infection control procedures by dental health care workers in Taegu, South Korea. METHODS: Information was obtained with a mailed questionnaire sent to 300 private dental practices. Surveys were received from 177 dentists, 104 dental hygienists, and 46 dental assistants. All dental health care workers were asked to donate a blood sample for analysis of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody (anti-HBs). RESULTS: Vaccination against hepatitis B virus was reported by 63 percent of the respondents. About 40 percent of all participants answered that they were anti-HBs positive, while another 43 percent did not know their status. About 89 percent of dentists reported that they wore a mask with all patients, while hygienists (13.6%) and assistants (13.0%) were less likely to do so. Reported use of gloves (4.5%) and protective eyewear (14%) with all patients was extremely low in every group. Among the 56 dentists who were tested for HBV markers, 23 did not receive the vaccine against hepatitis B, and 13 percent (3 of 23) were positive for HBsAg as carriers. CONCLUSIONS: About 37 percent (120 of 327) of dental health care workers surveyed in this study in Korea did not receive the vaccine against HBV infection. Basic barrier techniques to prevent cross-contamination were not being used consistently. Nationwide guidelines for barrier techniques and hepatitis vaccinations should be developed and disseminated to dental personnel.     

Oral health education in Finnish schools

The public system of oral health care in Finland, as in the other Nordic countries, is responsible for arranging oral health education for school classes. In this study the coverage and the personnel implementing these lessons in Finnish schools were assessed. A questionnaire was sent to all health centers (n = 214). The response rate was 87%. A total of over 23,000 oral health lessons were arranged in schools during the year studied. Coverage was high in primary schools, lower in secondary schools and lower still in high schools. The main implementers of the lessons were dental assistants. The conclusions of the study were: 1) coverage of teenagers should be increased, 2) the role of dental hygienists and dentists in implementing the program should be greater, and 3) oral health personnel and teachers should cooperate more actively.     

Percutaneous injuries among dental health care workers

To evaluate percutaneous injuries among dental health care workers this survey posed two questions: Is there a difference in the number of percutaneous injuries occurring among dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants, and Is there a difference in the number of injuries that occur intraorally or extraorally among dental health care workers as a whole, and within each occupational group? This prospective study included demographic information and an incident report. The incident report tabulated type of injury (intraoral or extraoral), procedure during which the injury occurred, and type of instrument that caused the injury.     

Child dental neglect laws: Specifications and repercussions for dentists in 51 jurisdictions

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to perform an interjurisdictional comparison of statutes and regulations (collectively laws) pertaining to the reporting of child dental neglect by dentists. Case law interpretation or enforcement of the laws was not included in this study.MethodsChild neglect laws were identified in 51 jurisdictions (50 states and the District of Columbia) by performing a Westlaw legal database search, conducting a systematic internet search, and engaging in direct communication with each jurisdiction. Laws on 2 domains relative to dentists were evaluated: protection from civil and criminal liability when reporting child neglect and sanctions for failing to report child neglect.ResultsAll jurisdictions have child neglect laws; however, only 8 specify failing to seek dental treatment as child neglect and none adopt the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry’s definition. Although all jurisdictions protect dental professionals who report child dental neglect in good faith, sanctions for failing to report neglect include imprisonment from 6 months (49%) through 5 years (2%) and fines from $1,000 (61%) through $10,000 (6%).ConclusionsAlthough the laws vary across jurisdictions, dentists are protected when reporting child dental neglect but can be sanctioned for failing to report it.Practical ImplicationsDentists may not be aware of the current sanctions or interjurisdictional differences. Becoming informed about these laws may incentivize dentists to establish reporting protocols for child dental neglect.     

Organizational types in relation to exposure at work and sickness – a repeated cross-sectional study within public dentistry

Abstract

Objective: Organizations and state agencies that provide dental care continuously face various and novel demands related to the need for dental care. However, rearrangements of work tasks by reducing the number of tasks performed by dental personnel might make the work more monotonous, repetitive, and static within an organization. The aim of this study is to compare how two dental work organizations, with different staffing and clinic size, are perceived by dental personnel focusing on physical and psychosocial conditions, leadership, work ability and presenteeism in 2012 and 2014.

Material and Methods: This repeated cross-sectional study included personnel from the Public Dental Service in Sweden. There were 282 dentists, dental hygienists, and dental nurses who answered a questionnaire 2012 and 299 in 2014.

Results and conclusion: In 2012, nine per cent of medium clinics reported poor leadership compared with 27% in 2014. For large clinics, 17% perceived poor leadership in 2012 compared with 31% in 2014. A higher proportion of the employees reported presenteeism due to high physical load (43%) and high psychosocial load (21%) in 2014 compared with 31% and 13% in 2012. These results indicate the need for work place interventions promoting health among dental employees.     

International migration of Lithuanian oral health professionals: a survey of graduates

Aim: To assess the intentions of general dentists, dental specialists, dental hygienists, assistants and technicians graduated from Lithuanian educational institutions in 0032010 to engage in practice in foreign countries. Material and methods: A questionnaire survey was carried out among all graduates (N = 347) general dentists, dental specialists, dental hygienists, assistants and technicians in Lithuania in 2010. The response rate was 82.7%. Results: 32.4% of graduates from all oral health specialties mentioned their intentions to emigrate from Lithuania. The highest rate of emigration intentions was found among dental assistants (35.5%) and general dentistry graduates (26.9%). Factors related to higher reported intentions to emigrate were relatives or friends residing in other states, self‐rating of personal unhappiness, or residing in large cities. As many as every fourth (23.1%) dental hygienist, assistant and technician graduates had already planned, arranged and organised for emigration. Major destination countries are the UK, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. Of all oral health professionals, the highest rate of reported intentions to emigrate was among dental hygienists, assistants and technicians, therefore many of them will not join the professional community in Lithuania. Conclusion: The survey gives indications about the possible magnitude of emigration of oral health professionals from Lithuania and is the first study of its kind. The results show that Lithuania is a major sending country in the context of international oral health professionals’ migration flows.     

Answers from dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants to questions asked by patients concerning preventive dental matters

142 dentists, 21 dental hygienists and 35 dental assistants were asked lo fill in a questionnaire which consisted of 40 questions about preventive dental matters regularly asked by Dutch dental patients. The 40 questions were submitted to experts in the field of preventive dentistry. The experts were in agreement on 26 questions. It was decided to use these questions for analysis. The average percentage of correctly answered questions was: for the dentists 53%, for the dental hygienists 58% and for the dental assistants 37%. The group of 142 dentists was further analyzed. It appears that the knowledge about preventive dental matters increases subsequently with each year of gradual ion. Analysis of the dentists who graduated from Dutch dental schools in their capacity as private practitioner, as faculty member or in the school dental service, revealed that there was no difference in knowledge between these groups. With some reservations the conclusion can be stated that an obvious necessity exists for post-academic courses in preventive dentistry in the groups concerned. Greater uniformity is needed between the views of the experts and the dental professionals who treat patients daily.     

Preferences over dental restorative materials among young patients and dental professionals

Knowledge of the patient's view is necessary, as patients' rights are an issue of increasing importance in dental practice. This study aimed to examine how dentists (n = 42), dental assistants (n = 65), and young dental patients (n = 306) in Norway and Denmark valued three attributes of dental restorations, namely, expected longevity, the appearance, and the risk of an adverse reaction. According to the discrete choice method, participants were presented with several scenarios, describing different levels of the attributes, for comparison of two restorations (A and B). The differences among patients, dentists, and dental assistants were examined by logistic regression analyses. The likelihood of a dentist favoring one restoration over another was very sensitive to the difference in the expected longevity of the restorations, and much less to differences in visibility. The patients had considerable sensitivity to differences in visibility and much less to differences in duration. Danish teenagers attach less importance to visibility of the restoration and greater importance to the risk of an adverse reaction than Norwegian teenagers. All differences were statistically significant. Preferences associated with properties of dental restorations differ between teenage patients and dental professionals and this should be addressed in clinical decision-making.     

Concordance between patient satisfaction and the dentist's view: Findings from The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network

ObjectivesIn this study, the authors examined the dentist's view of the patient's experience and concordance with the patient's rating of satisfaction.MethodsPractitioners from 197 practices in The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network recruited consecutively seen patients who had defective restorations that were replaced or repaired. At the end of the dental visit, the treating dentist and 5,315 patients completed and returned a survey that asked about the patient's satisfaction.ResultsMost dentists viewed their patients as having been satisfied with the treatment experience (n = 4,719 [89 percent]) and as having perceived them as friendly (n = 5,136 [97 percent]). Dentists had less strong feelings about whether patients had a preference for the restorative material (n = 2,271 [43 percent]) or an interest in obtaining information about the procedure (n = 1,757 [33 percent]). Overall, patients were satisfied, and most of the time dentists correctly predicted this outcome. Among patients who were less than satisfied, there was a substantial subset of cases in which dentists were not aware of this dissatisfaction.ConclusionFor improved patient-centered care, dentists should assess patients' desires, expectations and perceptions of the dental care experience and then manage or correct the expectations and perceptions as needed.Practical ImplicationsBy taking a patient-centered approach, dentists should seek to understand how patients evaluate and rate the services provided, thereby enabling them to focus on what each patient values most.     

In vivo evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2. A randomized-controlled clinical trial

ObjectivesThe oral cavity is potentially high-risk transmitter of COVID-19. Antimicrobial mouthrinses are used in many clinical preprocedural situations for decreasing the risk of cross-contamination in the dental setting. It is important to investigate the efficacy of mouthwash solutions against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in order to reduce the exposure of the dental team during dental procedures.AimsThe aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load and to compare the results of the mouthwashes to a control group.Materials and MethodsIn this randomized-controlled clinical trial, studied group comprised laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive patients through nasopharyngeal swabs. Participants were divided into 3 groups. For 30 s, the control group mouthrinsed with distilled water, the Chlorhexidine group mouthrinsed with 0.2% Chlorhexidine and the Povidone-iodine group gargled with 1% Povidone-iodine. Saliva samples were collected before and 5 min after mouthwash. SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was then performed for each sample. Evaluation of the efficacy was based on difference in cycle threshold (Ct) value. The analysis of data was carried out using GraphPad Prism version 5 for Windows. Kristal wullis and Paired t-test were used. A probability value of less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.ResultsSixty-one compliant participants (36 female and 25 male) with a mean age 45.3 ± 16.7 years-old were enrolled. A significant difference was noted between the delta Ct of distilled water wash and each of the 2 solutions Chlorhexidine 0.2% (P = .0024) and 1% Povidone-iodine (P = .012). No significant difference was found between the delta Ct of patients using Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine solutions (P = .24). A significant mean Ct value difference (P < .0001) between the paired samples in Chlorhexidine group (n = 27) and also in Povidone-iodine group (n = 25) (P < .0001) was found. In contrast, no significant difference (P = .566) existed before and after the experiment in the control group (n = 9).ConclusionChlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine oral solutions are effective preprocedural mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in dental treatments. Their use as a preventive strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 during dental practice should be considered.