The pandemic of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has emerged as a global catastrophe that is plaguing mankind. In the past eight months since the world discovered about COVID-19, we learned a lot about server acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) and perhaps there is much more to discover and understand about the virus. With the current understanding of the disease, we assume it will remain in an active state of transmission and progression among the community for a long time. Thus, it is advisable to adopt the disease’s prevention protocol in our daily and work routine. During this pandemic patient requiring dental treatment cannot be neglected and the role of dental imaging is crucial in delivering treatment. Hence, this article attempts to provide an evidence-based compilation about the mode of transmission and clinical features of COVID-19. It also throws light on the potential source of disease transmission in the dental radiology setting. In addition, it suggests preventive measures to curb the infection and infrastructural model of the clinical setting that will assist in achieving control over the disease transmission. This article intends to project a strategy about protocols, infrastructure, and daily activities in a dental radiology office that institutions can adopt with modifications according to their local scenario.

Aim: This study evaluates the role of low-level laser emission/photobiomodulation (LE/P) in quantitative measurements of root resorption (QRR). The application of LE/P performed after each orthodontic activation with four types of treatment intervention (TI) on the root resorption (RR) after fixed orthodontic treatment (FOT) of the upper arch with ectopic eye tooth/teeth [EET] was investigated. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two orthodontic patients scheduled for FOT were selected and assigned to the four groups. These were LE/P + Self ligating bracket (SLB), LE/P + Conventional bracket (CB), non-photobiomodulation (non-LE/P) + SLB and non-LE/P + CB. Standard management stages of FOT were followed in the maxilla. Each patient received a single application of LE/P labially/buccally and palatally, a total of five different points were used during each activation or appointment. The main outcome measure was QRR in maxillary anteriors before and after FOT, assessed via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) using 3D OnDemand software. Results: Insignificant QRR was found between before and after FOT in SLB, CLB, and LE/P, non-LE/P groups (p > 0.05). QRR in the SLB vs. CB and LE/P vs. non-LE/P group was significantly different in 11, 13, and 23 (p < 0.05). QRR in the LE/P + SLB group (p < 0.05) was significantly different in 11, 13, and 23 than that in the other groups. The most severe QRR was found on 13 (0.88 ± 0.28 mm and 0.87 ± 0.27 mm) and 23 (1.19 ± 0.14 mm and 1.16±0.13 mm) in the CB and non-LE/P group (p < 0.001). LE/P + SLB showed a highly significant superior outcome (p < 0.001) in relation to non-LE/P + CB, the QRR of 23 were 0.813 ± 0.114 mm and 1.156 ± 0.166 mm, respectively. Conclusion: Significantly higher amounts of QRR were found in EET patients after FOT treated with the CB, non-LE/P, and non-LE/P + CB system and warrant further investigation to explore potential specific causes.

The present systematic review aims to evaluate the efficiency of Physics forceps over the conventional forceps for the extraction of a tooth. The study began with targeted electronic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane, Science Direct and Google Scholar databases. All selected articles were reviewed by four independent reviewers for eligibility. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to analyze the studies for bias. Due to heterogeneity of the selected studies, a meta-analysis of the current systematic review was not possible. A total of five studies were considered for the final analysis. The risk of bias showed high risk for all five included articles. Various parameters, such as fracture of the root, dry socket, healing, pain, postoperative infection, crown fractures, buccal bone fractures, extraction time, gingival and marginal bone loss, gingival laceration, bleeding and healing were assessed. Based on the data available, there is an insufficient quality of evidence to conclude the superiority of the Physics forceps over conventional forceps.