A Multicultural Demographic Study to Evaluate the Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic on the Job Satisfaction across the Dental Industry

Objective: To evaluate the difference in working conditions as perceived by dentists during the pandemic and their professional satisfaction levels. Material and Methods:  An online survey was conducted using the convenience and snowball sampling methods. Two hundred seventy-two respondents across various countries answered information related to socio-demographic data and work satisfaction levels during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Results: 40.1% of dentists reported dissatisfied with their current work, while another 13.6% of dentists fell in the extremely dissatisfied category. 22.8% of dentists were significantly dissatisfied with their current income. Furthermore, 38.4% of the dentists were dissatisfied with physical working conditions, while 33.5% reported dissatisfaction with the freedom of working methods. Conclusion: This study was focused on the connection between various intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting working conditions, social interactions, and psychological stresses. From the findings of this multicultural study, we can see that dentists across different countries have been affected and have varying levels of dissatisfaction. Therefore, regulatory authorities must plan for support and interventional programs to help dental professionals pass this difficult period

Comparative Evaluation of Different Numerical Pain Scales Used for Pain Estimation during Debonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Introduction. Patients experience various levels of discomfort during orthodontic treatment, i.e., after placement of separators, orthodontic implant placement, and archwire placement and during debonding. Various pain control methods have been developed to relive pain during debonding, i.e., finger pressure (FP), elastomeric wafer (EW), and stress relief (SR). 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. Conclusion. FP is an effective method of pain control. And teeth in the anterior region of lower and upper arches are more sensitive to pain. In terms of cognitive-affective constructs, although the VAS has been widely used in previous studies, the PCS has been detailed to show the most reliable association with physical discomfort and emotional distress

Risk Perception of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implementation of Various Protective Measures by Dentists Across Various Countries

Objective: Healthcare workers in general are at a high risk of potential infections with COVID-19, especially those who work with aerosol generating procedures. Dentists fall in this category, as not only do they operate with aerosol generating procedures but also operate within a face-to-face contact area. 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. Conclusion: Dentists are aware of recently updated knowledge about the modes of transmission of COVID-19 and the recommended infection control measures in dental settings. A better understanding of the situation and methods to prevent it will ensure that the dental community is able to provide healthcare services to patients during the pandemic