Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate endodontic infection prevention and control routines among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway. Materials and methods: A questionnaire were sent by email to 1384 general dental practitioners employed in Sweden and Norway. The participants were asked questions concerning different aspects of infection prevention and control during endodontic treatment; use of rubber dam, sealing of rubber dam, antibacterial solutions, and use of hand disinfectant and gloves. Results: The response rate was 61,4 % (n 819). 96,9 % reported routinely using rubber dam during endodontic treatment. 88,3% reported always, or sometimes, sealing the area between rubber dam and tooth. Most disinfected the endodontic operative field, but the antibacterial solutions used varied. 11,9 % did not use gloves at all during treatment, and 10,5 % did not use hand disinfectant during treatment. Conclusions: Most of the general dental practitioners took measures to establish and maintain aseptics during endodontic treatment, which infers an awareness of the importance of endodontic infection prevention and control. But the results were self-reported and there may be a gap between claimed and actual behavior. Further studies using observation methodologies are needed to assess how infection control routines are performed in everyday clinical practice.

Objective: To reduce the gap between what can be achieved in endodontic treatments and the observed treatment outcome among general dental practitioners, the present study set out to assess the status of the endodontic practices as regards to knowledge and self-assessed skills among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway. Material and method: The questionnaire was sent to 1384 general dental practitioners. It contained questions regarding access to continuing education in endodontics, sources of knowledge for clinical management of patients, post-operative follow-ups, self-assessed success-rate, and the initial diagnosis impact on the outcome of endodontic treatments. Results: The response rate was 61.4%. Almost half estimated their endodontic success-rate to be 90%. About two-thirds of the respondents did not know, or did not believe, that the initial diagnosis could affect the outcome of their endodontic treatments. Respondents who did not believe the diagnosis could impact the outcome were more likely to estimate their success rate as the highest (p<.001). Less than half performed post-operative follow-ups a year after treatment. A third of the respondents had not attended any continuing endodontic education. Conclusion: Dentists who do not receive regular feedback on their treatments may lack insight into their own shortcomings. If this is combined with insufficient knowledge and understanding it may result in sub-par endodontic treatments being performed. It is important to have reliable ways to communicate current endodontic knowledge and to establish robust methods that may help dentists accurately assess their own performance in endodontics.

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.

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.