The COVID-19 outbreak has raised concerns about infection control all over the world. Among health workers, dentists are particularly exposed to the COVID-19 infection risk. The aim of this paper is to present a workflow to manage dental procedures already in use at the Dental Unit of the University Hospital of Messina. The proposed workflow accounts for the many aspects of dental practitioners’ risk in the COVID-19 era, and focuses on the assessment of patient risk level, a two-phase dental procedure management (remote and face-to-face), and the use of specific preventive measures. No cases of COVID-19 infection were detected among patients and staff of the dental unit in a two-month period of time while using this protocol. This workflow seems a promising and effective solution to manage dental procedures during the COVID-19 outbreak, and could be implemented in both public and private practices until the emergency is contained.

Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder has been reported to be 1.5 to two times more common in women than men. Such a gender-based difference could be attributed to behavioral, hormonal, anatomical, and psychological characteristics. Physiological hormonal differences between genders could be one of the possible explanations for the higher incidence of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) in women. As the plasma level of certain female hormones increases during gestation, it could be assumed that there is a higher prevalence of dysfunctional signs and symptoms in pregnant women. We performed an epidemiological survey based on screening for TMD in a group of 108 pregnant women and found that 72% of young women reported significant signs of TMJ disorders, 9% of the young women reported mild signs of TMJ disorders, and 19% of the included subjects reported no signs or symptoms of TMD. The presence of estrogen receptors in the temporomandibular joint of female baboons could be the basis of an explanation for the increased prevalence of dysfunction in young women reported in the literature and the high feedback we have seen of joint noises in pregnant women. On the basis of the present findings, it could be assumed that gestation period could represent a risk factor for craniomandibular dysfunctions.

The aim of this scoping review was to explore and synthesise the current evidence on the antimicrobial activity of antibacterial suture materials used in oral surgery. The review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A bibliographic search was carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases to retrieve all human clinical studies that investigated the antimicrobial efficacy of antibacterial-coated sutures used in oral surgery. Included studies were screened and extracted independently by 2 examiners. Data were tabulated and qualitatively described. The search initially returned 150 articles and resulted in 5 included studies after the duplicates' removal and the full-text screening. Selected studies were published from 2014 to 2019. Three studies (60%) were randomised clinical trials, whilst the remaining studies did not report information on randomisation. The antimicrobial agents for coated sutures included triclosan and chlorhexidine. In almost all the studies, antibacterial-coated sutures exhibited lower bacterial retention compared to those without coating. Within limitations, the antimicrobial-coated sutures employed in oral surgery exhibited good results in terms of their microbicidal activity when compared with sutures that were not coated. Considering the high variability and confounding factors identified in the included studies, more high-quality research is needed to confirm these results. Antimicrobial-coated sutures could represent a promising and clinically valid strategy to reduce microbial colonisation in oral surgery. The reduced bacterial adherence is likely to improve the clinical success of the surgical procedures. Yet, the cost-benefit ratio of antimicrobial-coated sutures should be assessed in larger clinical trials to confirm their efficacy over conventional noncoated sutures.

The need for extractions in orthodontic treatment has always been a controversial topic. However, to date there is not a specific clinical guideline that can help the clinicians deciding to plan an extractive or a non-extractive orthodontic treatment. In this respect, clinicians must deal with patients’ occlusal, functional, periodontal and aesthetics characteristics before planning an orthodontic treatment including extraction. Considering the absence of specific guidelines, the choice to extract teeth or not is complicated, particularly in borderline cases. In this case report, we present a borderline case of a patient with the skeletal Class III pattern and significant crowding in both arches that could be treated with or without extraction, illustrating the diagnostic and decision-making processes that were conducted for the orthodontic treatment strategy.