Prevalence of reported percutaneous injuries on dentists: A meta-analysis

To answer the focused question, “What are the prevalence of percutaneous injuries (PIs) on dentists, the location with the highest prevalence, and the dental instrument most responsible for these injuries?" As secondary outcomes, the prevalence by geographic location, type of PI, sex distributi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of dentistry 2018-09, Vol.76, p.9-18
Main Authors: Pereira, Mateus Cardoso, Mello, Fernanda Weber, Ribeiro, Dayane Machado, Porporatti, André Luís, da Costa, Sylvio, Flores-Mir, Carlos, Gianoni Capenakas, Silvia, Dutra, Kamile Leonardi
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Citation management software
Confidence intervals
Cost control
Data collection
Dental schools
Dentistry
Dentists
Hepatitis
HIV
Hospitals
Human immunodeficiency virus
Infections
Injuries
Injury analysis
Literature reviews
Meta-analysis
Needlestick injuries
Prevalence
Review
Risk factors
Studies
Systematic review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To answer the focused question, “What are the prevalence of percutaneous injuries (PIs) on dentists, the location with the highest prevalence, and the dental instrument most responsible for these injuries?" As secondary outcomes, the prevalence by geographic location, type of PI, sex distribution, and dentist’s specialty were also considered. Observational descriptive studies investigating the prevalence of percutaneous injuries on dentists were included. Five electronic databases and three partial grey literature searches were performed. The MAStARI tool assessed the potential risk of bias (RoB) among the studies, while the GRADE approach determined the level of evidence. Among 2284 identified studies, 55 were included. Three studies were classified as low RoB, 17 as moderate RoB, and 35 as high RoB. The sample size ranged from 9 to 4107 dentists. The PI prevalence in dentists ranged from 7.72% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93–37.59) to 66.74% (95%CI: 29.83–94.51). North America was the most affected region, while South America was the least affected. Differences between sexes were not significant. The dental bur was the most commonly reported dental instrument causing PIs. Owing to the very low GRADE level of evidence, caution should be applied when considering these findings and further research is required. A high PI prevalence among dentists was noticed, and most were caused by dental burs. These findings imply that PIs should be considered by every dentist and proper measures instituted to reduce their prevalence.
ISSN:0300-5712
1879-176X
DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.019