Oral cancer is among the deadliest types of malignancy due to the late stage at which it is usually diagnosed, leaving the patient with an average five-year survival rate of less than 50%. The booming field of biosensing and point of care diagnostics can, in this regard, play a major role in the early detection of oral cancer. Saliva is gaining interest as an alternative biofluid for non-invasive diagnostics, and many salivary biomarkers of oral cancer have been proposed. While these findings are promising for the application of salivaomics tools in routine practice, studies on larger cohorts are still needed for clinical validation. This review aims to summarize the most recent development in the field of biosensing related to the detection of salivary biomarkers commonly associated with oral cancer. An introduction to oral cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment is given to define the clinical problem clearly, then saliva as an alternative biofluid is presented, along with its advantages, disadvantages, and collection procedures. Finally, a brief paragraph on the most promising salivary biomarkers introduces the sensing technologies commonly exploited to detect oral cancer markers in saliva. Hence this review provides a comprehensive overview of both the clinical and technological advantages and challenges associated with oral cancer detection through salivary biomarkers.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus was discovered in China in late 2019 and subsequently triggered a global pandemic. Dentists, like many other health professionals, are at an increased risk of contracting the virus as they work in close proximity to patients, especially when performing aerosol-generating procedures. Thus, in order for dentists to protect themselves and their patients, it is recommended that practitioners wear filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) respirators. The prolonged use of these FFP2 respirators has been linked to several side effects. The aim of this paper is to assess the perceived experience associated with N95/FFP2 respirators based on the available literature and data collected through an online survey completed by Italian dental professionals. Articles were included up to May 2020 and literature searches were conducted through The National Library of Medicine, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. The search terms included COVID-19, respirators, masks, and discomfort. An online survey was administered to 256 Italian dentists. The results from this survey were in agreement with the available literature. The findings concurred that the prolonged use of respirators was associated with headaches (47.5%), severe exertion and discomfort (50.8%), moderate concentration problems (54.3%), moderate breathing difficulties (63.5%), and consequently, an impaired work ability (85.5%). These findings were not influenced by the number of hours spent wearing the respirator. Despite several side effects, FFP2 respirators are fundamental in protecting dentists and their importance was acknowledged.

This systematic review aims to evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of mouth rinses on SARS-CoV-2 from in vitro studies. Five electronic databases were searched up to February 2021; no language or time restrictions were used. Two independent reviewers conducted both selection and data extraction processes. The toxicological data reliability assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. Starting from 239 articles, retrieved by the electronic search, only eight studies were included in our systematic review. Povidone Iodine (PVP-I) was effective in killing SARS-CoV-2, demonstrated higher virucidal activity than other commonly used active ingredients. Conflicting results were found about the effectiveness of Chlorhexidine (CHX) while hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) proved less effective than PVP-I. Other active ingredients, such as quaternary ammonium compounds and Ethanol (particularly when combined with essential oils), have also shown promising results in reducing viral load, with results comparable to PVP-I.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of a mouth rinse with hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) and hyaluronic acid (HA) versus a placebo mouth rinse on gingivitis.Material and methods: This was a 21‐day, double blind, randomized, two‐arm parallel allocation placebo‐controlled trial of 50 study participants with a diagnosis of plaque‐induced gingivitis. Patients were randomly allocated to the test group or the placebo group and were assessed at three time points over the course of the study by the same operator, at baseline (T0), 7 days (T1), and 21 days follow‐up (T2). Primary outcomes of the trial were improvement in gingivitis and plaque accumulation.Results: In both groups there was a decrease in gingival and plaque indices but the combination of the two actives (H₂O₂/HA) proved to be more effective against gingivitis (p = 0.001). Regarding plaque index, the differences between the test product and placebo were not statistically significant (p = 0.084). Besides, the new mouthwash was considered palatable, no adverse events were registered over the 21‐day period.Conclusions: The H₂O₂ + HA product was more effective in reducing gingivitis when compared to a placebo while no differences were observed for plaque accumulation.

At the end of 2019, a new disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 appeared in Wuhan Province in China. Children seemed to be infected less frequently than adults, and family clusters seemed to play an important role in the spread of the pandemic. The aim of this study is to evaluate the serological profile of children and young adults between 4 and 16 years of age in order to assess the transmission patterns of COVID-19 between cohabitants. The subjects lived with at least one cohabitant who tested positive for the disease using a nasopharyngeal swab. To avoid contact with the disease, families were interviewed by telephone. Forty-nine children and adolescents with a mean age of 11 years were then subjected to a rapid lateral flow chromatographic test. Of them, seven (14.3%) were immunoglobulin G (IgG)-positive, and four (8.2%) were immunoglobulin M (IgM)-positive. In total, 16.3% of the tested sample had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: this may confirm the lower vulnerability of children to COVID-19, despite the small sample size. The time from the negativization of the cohabitant until the test day may have influenced the results, especially when this timeframe is wide.

Serafin M, et al. Imaging Sci Dent. 2025 Jul;55:e26. https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20250013