Coronavirus is an enveloped virus with positive-sense single-stranded RNA. Coronavirus infection in humans mainly affects the upper respiratory tract and to a lesser extent the gastrointestinal tract. Clinical symptoms of coronavirus infections can range from relatively mild (similar to the common cold) to severe (bronchitis, pneumonia, and renal involvement). The disease caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) was called Covid-19 by the World Health Organization in February 2020. Face-to-face communication and consistent exposure to body fluids such as blood and saliva predispose dental care workers at serious risk for 2019-nCoV infection. As demonstrated by the recent coronavirus outbreak, information is not enough. During dental practice, blood and saliva can be scattered. Accordingly, dental practice can be a potential risk for dental staff, and there is a high risk of cross-infection. This article addresses all information collected to date on the virus, in accordance with the guidelines of international health care institutions, and provides a comprehensive protocol for managing possible exposure to patients or those suspected of having coronavirus.

Background: Orofacial clefts (OFCs) comprise a wide range of malformations, including cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip with cleft palate, which can vary in terms of etiology, severity, and disease burden. Objective(s): This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between various risk factors and orofacial cleft disorder spectrum in newborns. Study design: A total of 323 cases and 400 controls were enrolled in this study and evaluated in terms of the maternal history of abortion or miscarriage, child’s sex, maternal and paternal age, maternal history of systemic disease, history of medication therapy during pregnancy, birth order, consanguineous marriage, and complications during pregnancy. Results: Analysis of the results suggested that consanguineous marriage, a maternal history of abortion/miscarriage, and complications during pregnancy could potentially increase the risk of OFCs in children (P < 0.05). However, the analyses revealed that the other variables could not potentially increase the risk of OFCs (P > 0.05). Conclusion(s): Multiple cofactors may simultaneously contribute to the formation of such abnormalities; therefore, a comprehensive, multidisciplinary care program is necessary to ensure a successful pregnancy period and the birth of a healthy newborn.

Reduction in postoperative complications is of vital considerations in impacted third molar teeth surgery. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative complications of impacted third molar surgeries for bone removal using laser, piezoelectric equipment, and conventional rotary instruments. To address the research purpose, the investigator designed the prospective double-blind clinical trial study. The sample size was determined 20 (40 teeth) by sampling formula in any kind of operation. The data of patients were obtained in the different periods in terms of pain, trismus, swelling, ecchymosis, and patient’s satisfaction and then analyzed using SPSS 20 software via paired t test and Wilcoxon and McNemar’s tests. The pain immediately after surgery and 2 days and 7 days after surgery was higher in the laser group. The swelling immediately after surgery was more in the laser group but not significant. The amount of mouth opening immediately after surgery and 2 days and 7 days after surgery was significantly lower in the laser group than in the piezosurgery group. The total duration of surgery and duration of osteotomy were significantly longer in the laser group. The patient’s satisfaction from surgery with piezosurgery was more than that with laser, but this difference was not significant. Due to the rising demand for impacted wisdom tooth surgery, the present study suggests that hard tissue laser surgery and piezosurgery can clear the future of impacted molar surgery, and these approaches are more efficient in reducing postoperative complications compared to the conventional surgeries.

Background: Insufficient support of the nasal mid-vault during rhinoplasty can cause significant complications. Accordingly, surgeons have recently paid much more attention to the preservation of nasal patency. The spreader graft is the gold standard technique for the reconstruction of nasal mid-vault.Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the spreader graft and spreader flap in terms of aesthetic and functional outcomes.Methods: An inclusive search was performed with PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases up to April 2021. Multiple aesthetic and functional factors, including dorsal aesthetic lines restoration, satisfaction rate, internal nasal valve angle improvement, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale, and active anterior rhinomanometry were evaluated. Also, a meta-analysis was performed on the included articles that provided adequate data for mentioned factors.Results: After excluding papers that did not conform with the selection criteria, 10 articles with a total sample size of 567 cases with a mean age of 27.7 years (range, 18-65 years) were finally included. Analysis of the data revealed no statistically significant difference between the spreader graft and spreader flap techniques in terms of dorsal aesthetic lines restoration, internal nasal valve angle improvement, nasal obstruction symptom evaluation scale, and anterior rhinomanometry.Conclusions: However, in terms of satisfaction rate, the analyzes indicated that spreader graft has significantly superior aesthetic outcomes. Generally, in case of appropriately selected patients, there is no statistically significant difference between spreader graft and spreader flap techniques in terms of aesthetic and functional outcomes.