Objective: The aim was to evaluate the establishment of an aseptic endodontic operative field in general dentistry by assessing general dentists' ability to reduce the amount of contamination to a non-cultivable level, and to compare the operative field asepsis at a general dentistry clinic with that at an endodontic specialist clinic.

Materials and Methods: A total of 353 teeth were included in the study (153 in general dentistry, 200 at the specialist clinic). After isolation, control samples were taken, the operative fields disinfected with 30% hydrogen peroxide (1 min) followed by 5% iodine tincture or .5% chlorhexidine solution. Samples were collected from the access cavity area and buccal area, placed in a fluid thioglycolate medium, incubated (37 & DEG;, 7 d), evaluated for growth/non-growth.

Results: Significantly more contamination was observed at the general dentistry clinic (31.6%, 95/301), than at the endodontic specialist clinic (7.0%, 27/386) (p <.001). In general dentistry, significantly more positive samples were collected in the buccal area than in the occlusal area. Significantly more positive samples were collected when the chlorhexidine protocol had been used, both in general dentistry (p <.001) and at the specialist clinic (p =.028).

Conclusions: The result from this study shows insufficient endodontic aseptic control in general dentistry. At the specialist clinic, both disinfection protocols were able to reduce the amount of microorganisms to a non-cultivable level. The observed difference between the protocols may not reflect a true difference in the effectiveness of the antimicrobial solutions, as confounding factors may have contributed to the result.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore what affected dental health care workers' sense of safety while working during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine their satisfaction with the information they received on COVID-19 and pandemic protocols.

MATERIAL AND METHOD: An invitation to participate in the survey was distributed to 2,990 dental health care workers in Sweden. Open-ended questions were analyzed using the Theoretical Domains Framework, closed-ended questions with Pearson's chi-squared test.

RESULTS: The response rate was 41.7%. Of the respondents, 78.7% were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘fairly satisfied’ with the information they received. Conflicting messages were reported as a problem, especially regarding how highly prioritized the pandemic protocols were. ‘Fairly safe’ or ‘very safe’ were the responses chosen by 70.9%, while 54.2% recounted situations that made them feel unsafe. The sense of safety was mainly related to one’s own knowledge, self-perceived skills, and support in the workplace. The feeling of not being safe was foremost related to resources: primarily PPE shortages and time-related shortages. Respondents who reported being asked to forego surgical face masks and/or economize with gloves/hand rub because of shortages were more likely to have felt unsafe (p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS: Most were satisfied with the information they had received, and most felt safe during the pandemic, but several respondents reported situations where they felt pressured to make compromises with their infection control. Future pandemic protocols should have ethics clearly incorporated regarding situations when there is a shortage of resources and include better planning for the provision of supplies for infection control.