Application of recommended preventive measures against COVID-19 could help mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during dental practice: Results from a follow-up survey of French dentists.

BACKGROUND: During the first-wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, dentists were considered at high-risk of infection. In France, to stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2, a nationwide lockdown was enforced, during which dentists suspended their routine clinical activities, working solely on dental emergencies. This measure has had an indisputable mitigating effect on the pandemic. To continue protecting dentists after suspension of nationwide lockdown, implementation of preventive measures was recommended, including adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and room aeration between patients. No study has explored whether implementation of such preventive measures since the end of the first-wave has had an impact on the contamination of dentists.
METHODS: An online survey was conducted within a French dentist population between July and September 2020. To explore risk factors associated with COVID-19, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.
RESULTS: The results showed that COVID-19 prevalence among the 3497 respondents was 3.6%. Wearing surgical masks during non-aerosol generating procedures was a risk factor of COVID-19, whereas reducing the number of patients was a protective factor.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the similar COVID-19 prevalence between dentists and the general population, such data suggest that dentists are not overexposed in their work environment when adequate preventive measures are applied. IMPACT: Dentists should wear specific PPE (FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks) including during non-aerosol generating procedures and reduce the number of patients to allow proper implementation of disinfection and aeration procedures. Considering the similarities between COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections, such preventive measures may also be of interest to limit emerging variants spread as well as seasonal viral outbreaks.

Introduction

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a global pandemic [1]. In France, to help stop the spread of the virus, a nationwide lockdown was enforced by the government on March 17, 2020 [2]. At that time, healthcare workers were considered at high-risk of infection, especially dentists [3, 4]. Thus, during lockdown, private practices have suspended their routine clinical activities to form an emergency only dental service, with hospital units remaining open for the same urgent treatments [5]. In a previous study including 4172 French dentists surveyed in April 2020, changes in work rhythm or clinical practice (e.g., participation in telephone regulation of emergency cases and / or practice limited to emergencies only) following lockdown appeared to be protective factors against COVID-19, whereas working in dental specialties highly exposed to droplets such as periodontology might be an at-risk practice [6]. However, very few people had been tested at that time (<5%), namely only symptomatic people or those with risk factors for severe COVID-19, in adherence with French government policy of the time [7]. After the suspension of lockdown on May 11, 2020, testing policy changed providing easier access to testing for healthcare workers, including reverse transcription–quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and serology tests [8]. Moreover, preventive measures were recommended such as the reinforcement of disinfection procedures between patients and implementation of specific personal protective equipment (PPE), in particular FFP2 masks during aerosol generating procedures [9].

As a logical continuation of our previous study, this study aimed to resurvey French dentists after the first French lockdown (1) to report the prevalence of COVID-19, (2) to assess the impact of preventive measures implemented following the end of the lockdown, and (3) to identify risk indicators associated with COVID-19.

Methods

From July 8 to September 8, 2020, an anonymous, non-incentivized, online survey was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and approved by the French national authorities regulating confidentiality (CNIL, Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés, No. 2217408). Participants were informed of the data collection, study aims and relevant data protection measures. Survey setting was equivalent to the first questionnaire sent in April [6].

Survey development

In total, 32 questions were divided in 8 sections, with a mean number of questions per section of 4 (see S1 Fig). The questionnaire consisted of several categories: sociodemographic data (gender, age); factors associated with COVID-19-related death [10]; perceived stress relating to the COVID-19 pandemic during the lockdown and after its suspension; work environment before the pandemic and after the suspension of lockdown; and actual COVID-19 status. Perceived stress levels of respondents were assessed with a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no stress) to 10 (highest stress imaginable) [11], regarding their personal safety, the safety of their families and patients, and the financial stability of their professional practice. Usual work environment characteristics (i.e. before the enforcement of lockdown on March 17, 2020) included the use of public transportation, type of practice (dental office and/or hospital department) and professional orientation (general practice or dental specialty). Work environment characteristics after suspension of lockdown included use of public transportation and professional exposure (i.e. number of daily treated patients, number of aerosol vs. non-aerosol dental procedures, and types of PPE used). COVID-19 status included laboratory test for COVID-19 performed (RT-qPCR test by nasopharyngeal swab or serology test) and self-reported symptoms.

Data synthesis and analysis

Binary variables were described using frequencies (percentages) and continuous variables were described using median (interquartile range (IQR)). When appropriate, Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test were used for binary variables and Kruskal-Wallis for continuous variables to compare differences between SARS-CoV-2 positive vs. SARS-CoV-2 negative or non-tested cases. To explore the associated risk indicators, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Variables with p value ≤ 0.2 in the univariate analysis were introduced into the multivariate analysis. Then, covariate selection was done with a stepwise descending procedure based on Akaike Information Criteria. The false discovery rate was controlled at a level of 5% with a Benjamini and Hochberg procedure [12]. A random region effect was then introduced to account for local disparities. Analyses involved use of R (version 4.0.3; www.r-project.org).

Results

In total, 3497 dentists responded to the questionnaire, which corresponds to approximately 9% of French dentists. Half of them responded to the first survey (1886, 53.9%).

Socio-demographic data, medical conditions, and clinical practice before the pandemic

The median age of respondents was 53 years (IQR, 42 to 61), ranging from 24 to 79 years, and more than half were women. About one fifth of respondents (19.8%, n = 695) had one or more risk factors for critical and mortal COVID-19 cases, of which the most common were being overweight or obese, tobacco consumption, hypertension, cancer, cardiovascular and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases. Most dentists worked in private practices (3415 [97.7%]). General practice was the most represented practice (3118 [82.2%]), followed by orthodontics and practice limited to oral surgery or periodontology. Details are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Socio-demographic data, medical conditions, and clinical practice before the pandemic.

	All included dentists (n = 3497)	No test performed (n = 2476)	Tested Negative (n = 895)	Tested Positive (n = 126)	p-value
Demographic data
Age, years	53 [42, 61]	53 [42, 61]	54 [42, 61]	54 [41.25, 61]	0.698*
Female gender	1847 (52.8)	1277 (51.6)	508 (56.8)	62 (49.2)	0.02
Medical Conditions
Current pregnancy	47 (1.3)	34 (1.4)	10 (1.1)	3 (2.4)	0.426
Current Smoking	270 (7.7)	192 (7.8)	66 (7.4)	12 (9.5)	0.638
Comorbidities
Allergies	463 (13.2)	320 (12.9)	128 (14.3)	15 (11.9)	0.544
Diabetes	67 (1.9)	38 (1.5)	21 (2.3)	8 (6.3)	0.002
Hypertension	284 (8.1)	184 (7.4)	88 (9.8)	12 (9.5)	0.062
Cardiopathies	109 (3.1)	76 (3.1)	30 (3.4)	3 (2.4)	0.86
COPD	97 (2.8)	68 (2.7)	26 (2.9)	3 (2.4)	0.959
CKD	19 (0.5)	11 (0.4)	8 (0.9)	0 (0.0)	0.276
Malignancies	114 (3.3)	76 (3.1)	34 (3.8)	4 (3.2)	0.554
Overweight or obesity	339 (9.7)	223 (9.0)	96 (10.7)	20 (15.9)	0.023
ID	41 (1.2)	28 (1.1)	11 (1.2)	2 (1.6)	0.782
Other	98 (2.8)	71 (2.9)	26 (2.9)	1 (0.8)	0.444
Clinical practice
Structure					<0.001
Private practice	3295 (94.3)	2371 (95.8)	811 (90.6)	113 (89.7)
Hospital	70 (2.0)	26 (1.1)	37 (4.1)	7 (5.6)
Private practice and hospital	120 (3.4)	69 (2.8)	46 (5.1)	5 (4.0)
Other	10 (0.3)	8 (0.3)	1 (0.1)	1 (0.8)
Practice					<0.001 #
General practice	3118 (89.2)	2235 (90.3)	781 (87.3)	102 (81.0)
Specialized practice	171 4.9)	104 (4.2)	53 (5.9)	14 (11.1)
Orthodontics	185 (5.3)	125 (5.1)	51 (5.7)	9 (7.1)
Other	21 (0.6)	10 (0.4)	10 (1.1)	1 (0.8)
Specific specialty
Endodontics	26 (0.7)	12 (0.5)	11 (1.2)	3 (2.4)	0.008
Oral surgery	55 (1.6)	36 (1.5)	17 (1.9)	2 (1.6)	0.597
Pediatric dentistry	42 (1.2)	24 (1.0)	14 (1.6)	4 (3.2)	0.042
Periodontology	57 (1.6)	41 (1.7)	12 (1.3)	4 (3.2)	0.276

Data are median [IQR], n (%). P-values comparing dentists’ COVID-19 test status (no test, negative or positive) are from (#) Chi-Square, (*) Kruskal-Wallis or Fisher’s exact test when not specified. COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CKD: chronic kidney disease; ID: immunodeficiencies.

Prevalence of COVID-19

From January to September 2020, 3.6% of respondents (n = 126) were tested positive for COVID-19. Among those, 13 (10.3%) were confirmed by RT-qPCR test only, 68 (54%) by serology test only, and 45 (35.7%) by both tests. In total, 1021 (28.3%) respondents were tested, including 198 (20%) with RT-qPCR test, 651 (63.8%) with serology test and 172 (16.8%) with both tests. Half of tested respondents (n = 511) reported at least one COVID-compatible symptom. Among the 126 COVID-19 positive cases, 108 (85.7%) were symptomatic, and the most common symptoms were tiredness, fever, anosmia, cough, headache, and ageusia. Moreover, 41 (32.5%) suspected a transmission within their work environment and 33 (26.2%) within the private sphere. Details are listed in Table 2.

Table 2

Symptoms and putative exposure history in dentists.

	All included dentists (n = 3497)	No test performed (n = 2476)	Tested Negative (n = 895)	Tested Positive (n = 126)	p-value
Symptoms
None	2671 (76.4)	2161 (87.3)	492 (55.0)	18 (14.3)	<0.001
Fever (>38°)	301 (8.6)	90 (3.6)	148 (16.5)	63 (50.0)	<0.001
Chills	185 (5.3)	55 (2.2)	93 (10.4)	37 (29.4)	<0.001
Headache	368 (10.5)	140 (5.7)	173 (19.3)	55 (43.7)	<0.001
Conjunctivitis	53 (1.5)	21 (0.8)	22 (2.5)	10 (7.9)	<0.001
Tiredness	573 (16.4)	213 (8.6)	274 (30.6)	86 (68.3)	<0.001
Rhinitis	223 (6.4)	85 (3.4)	111 (12.4)	27 (21.4)	<0.001
Myalgia	270 (7.7)	83 (3.4)	132 (14.7)	55 (43.7)	<0.001
Sore throat	254 (7.3)	94 (3.8)	134 (15.0)	26 (20.6)	<0.001
Cough	344 (9.8)	108 (4.4)	180 (20.1)	56 (44.4)	<0.001
Anosmia	120 (3.4)	26 (1.1)	37 (4.1)	57 (45.2)	<0.001
Ageusia	114 (3.3)	28 (1.1)	33 (3.7)	53 (42.1)	<0.001
Dyspnea	114 (3.3)	36 (1.5)	48 (5.4)	30 (23.8)	<0.001
ARDS	21 (0.6)	4 (0.2)	11 (1.2)	6 (4.8)	<0.001
Dizziness	89 (2.5)	27 (1.1)	50 (5.6)	12 (9.5)	<0.001
Other	121 (3.5)	32 (1.3)	68 (7.6)	21 (16.7)	<0.001
Contact history
Does not believe to be infected	2839 (81.2)	2195 (88.7)	629 (70.3)	15 11.9)	<0.001
Unknown	316 (9.0)	159 (6.4)	127 (14.2)	30 (23.8)	<0.001
Dental procedures	180 (5.2)	65 (2.6)	70 (7.8)	45 (35.7)	<0.001
Spouse, child	85 (2.4)	39 (1.6)	26 (2.9)	20 (15.9)	<0.001
During public transportation or travel	44 (1.3)	9 (0.4)	22 (2.5)	13 (10.3)	<0.001
Coworker	32 (0.9)	12 (0.5)	12 (1.3)	8 (6.3)	<0.001
Assistant, secretary	22 (0.6)	11 (0.4)	8 (0.9)	3 (2.4)	0.021
Other	95 (2.7)	51 (2.1)	32 (3.6)	12 (9.5)	<0.001

Data are n (%). P-values comparing dentists’ COVID-19 test status (no test, negative or positive) are from Fisher’s exact test. ARDS: acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Only 3 (2.4%) cases may have been infected after May 11, 2020; most of cases (108, 85.7%) may have been infected before this date, and data were insufficient to assess the date of infection for 15 (11.9%) cases (Fig 1). In addition, the peak of COVID-19 infection for this dentist sample (around March 16, 2020) appeared earlier than for the general population (around March 23, 2020).

Fig 1

Weekly evolution of new cases of Covid-19 in France.

Implementation of preventive measures following suspension of nationwide lockdown

After suspension of lockdown, most respondents (97.9%, n = 3424) returned to work. The use of public transportation was reduced by 40.9% (181 [5.3%] before the pandemic vs 107 [3.1%] after suspension of lockdown). Most respondents reduced the number of patients treated (77.1%, n = 2694) and the number of dental procedures (27.3%, n = 955). More participants wore FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks during aerosol generating procedures than during non-aerosol generating procedures (3294 [94.2%] vs. 2219 [63.5%]). The same trend was observed for safety goggles (3298 [94.4%] vs. 1578 [45.2%]), disposable gown (2851 [81.6%] vs. 1185 [33.9%]), hairnets (2984 [85.4%] vs. 2056 [58.8%]) and shoe covers (450 [12.9%] vs. 268 [7.7%]). Overall, dentists were more anxious regarding contaminating their families (median NRS score = 5 [IQR, 2 to 7]) and their professional financial and organizational difficulties (5 [3 to 7]) than to be contaminated or to contaminate their patients (3 [2 to 6]). Details are given in Table 3.

Table 3

Clinical practice and perceived stress after the lifting of the lockdown.

	All included dentists (n = 3497)	No test performed (n = 2476)	Tested Negative (n = 895)	Tested Positive (n = 126)	p-value
Return to work					0.079
Yes	3424 (97.9)	2427 (98.0)	875 (97.8)	122 (96.8)
Telephone regulation	8 (0.2)	5 (0.2)	3 (0.3)	0 (0.0)
No	44 (1.2)	25 (1.0)	15 (1.7)	4 (3.2)
Retired	21 (0.6)	19 (0.8)	2 (0.2)	0 (0.0)
Taking public transportation
Before lockdown	181 (5.3)	95 (3.9)	70 (8.0)	16 (13.1)	<0.001
After lockdown	107 (3.1)	59 (2.4)	36 (4.1)	12 (9.8)	<0.001
Changes after lockdown	270 (7.7)	83 (3.4)	132 (14.7)	55 (43.7)	<0.001
No change	941 (26.9)	658 (26.6)	241 (26.9)	42 (33.3)	0.249
Reducing number of patients	2694 (77.1)	1921 (77.6)	692 (77.3)	81 (64.3)	0.004
Reducing number of dental procedures	955 (27.3)	698 (28.2)	233 (26.0)	24 (19.0)	0.046
Reduce number of medical staff	120 (3.4)	84 (3.4)	30 (3.4)	6 (4.8)	0.653
Reduce number of paramedical staff	184 (5.3)	127 (5.1)	50 (5.6)	7 (5.6)	0.825
Treating emergencies only	31 (0.9)	22 (0.9)	8 (0.9)	1 (0.8)	1
Other	120 (3.4)	78 (3.2)	36 (4.0)	6 (4.8)	0.285
PPE (aerosol generating procedures)
Surgical mask	699 (20.0)	474 (19.2)	188 (21.0)	37 (29.4)	0.017
FFP2/FFP3/(K)N95 mask	3294 (94.2)	2331 (94.2)	851 (95.1)	112 (88.9)	0.029
Safety goggles	3298 (94.4)	2337 (94.5)	846 (94.5)	115 (91.3)	0.31
Hairnets	2984 (85.4)	2094 (84.6)	782 (87.4)	108 (85.7)	0.137
Shoe covers	450 (12.9)	301 (12.2)	124 (13.9)	25 (19.8)	0.029
Disposable gown	2848 (81.5)	2027 (81.9)	724 (80.9)	97 (77.0)	0.317
PPE (non-aerosol generating procedures)
Surgical mask	1307 (37.4)	881 (35.6)	360 (40.2)	66 (52.4)	<0.001
FFP2/FFP3/(K)N95 mask	2219 (63.5)	1601 (64.7)	558 (62.3)	60 (47.6)	<0.001
Safety goggles	1578 (45.2)	1106 (44.7)	406 (45.4)	66 (52.4)	0.237
Hairnets	2056 (58.8)	1430 (57.8)	555 (62.0)	71 (56.3)	0.074
Shoe covers	268 (7.7)	183 (7.4)	66 (7.4)	19 (15.1)	0.013
Disposable gown	1185 (33.9)	843 (34.1)	298 (33.3)	44 (34.9)	0.884
Perceived stress
Global	5 [3, 7]	5 [3, 7]	5 [3, 7]	5 [3, 7]	0.618*
Personal safety	3 [1, 5]	3 [1, 5]	3 [1, 5]	3 [2, 7]	<0.001*
Safety of their families	5 [2, 7]	5 [2, 7]	5 [2, 8]	7 [5, 8]	<0.001*
Safety of their patients	2 [0, 5]	2 [0, 5]	2 [0, 5]	3 [0, 5]	0.058*
Professional practice	7 [5, 8]	7 [5, 8]	7 [5, 8]	7 [5, 9]	0.315*

Data are median [IQR], n (%). P-values comparing dentists’ COVID-19 test status (no test, negative or positive) are from (*) Kruskal-Wallis or Fisher’s exact test when not specified.

Risk indicators associated with COVID-19

In the univariate analysis, odds of COVID-19 were higher in males, in dentists with specific comorbidities such as diabetes, thyroid disease and being overweight or obese, users of public transportation, in dentists working in hospital, with a specialized practice, in particular a practice limited to pediatric dentistry, and dentists who wore surgical masks and shoe covers during aerosol or non-aerosol generating procedures, whereas odds were lower in dentists treating fewer patients and wearing FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks during aerosol or non-aerosol generating procedures. In the multivariate analysis, dentists with diabetes (OR 2.83 IC 95% [1.21 to 6.61], p = 0.026), thyroid disease (4.07 [1.36 to 12.17, p = 0.024), and overweight or obese (1.83 [1.08 to 3.10], p = 0.032), users of public transportation before the lockdown (2.56 [1.46 to 4.48, p = 0.004), wearing surgical masks during non-aerosol generating procedures (1.91 [1.32 to 2.76], p = 0.004), and shoe covers during non-aerosol generating procedures (2.33 [1.09 to 5.01], p = 0.034) were associated with increased odds of COVID-19, whereas reducing the number of patients was associated with decreased odds (0.54 [0.37 to 0.80], p = 0.005). When introducing a random region effect in the multivariate analysis, odds of COVID-19 remained higher only in dentists wearing surgical masks during non-aerosol generating procedures (1.88 [1.30 to 2.73], p = 0.008), and odds remained lower in dentists treating fewer patients (0.56 [0.38 to 0.83], p = 0.016). Details are given in Table 4.

Table 4

Risk indicators associated with COVID-19 among dentists.

	No test performed or tested negative (n = 3371)	Tested Positive (n = 126)	Univariate OR (95% CI, p-value)	Multivariate OR (95% CI, p-value)	Multivariate OR (95% CI, p-value)*
Medical Conditions
Diabetes	59 (88.1)	8 (11.9)	3.80 (1.78–8.14, p = 0.001)	2.83 (1.21–6.61, p = 0.026)	2.49 (1.03–6.00, p = 0.056)
Overweight or obesity	319 (94.1)	20 (5.9)	1.80 (1.10–2.95, p = 0.019)	1.83 (1.08–3.10, p = 0.032)	1.78 (1.04–3.02, p = 0.054)
Thyroid disease	30 (88.2)	4 (11.8)	3.65 (1.27–10.52, p = 0.017)	4.07 (1.36–12.17, p = 0.024)	3.85 (1.27–11.67, p = 0.045)
Taking public transportation
Before lockdown	165 (91.2)	16 (8.8)	2.87 (1.66–4.97, p<0.001)	2.56 (1.46–4.48, p = 0.004)	1.63 (0.88–3.02, p = 0.136)
After lockdown	95 (88.8)	12 (11.2)	3.68 (1.96–6.91, p<0.001)	-	-
Changes after lockdown
No change	899 (95.5)	42 (4.5)	1.37 (0.94–2.01, p = 0.100)	-	-
Reducing number of patients	2613 (97.0)	81 (3.0)	0.52 (0.36–0.76, p = 0.001)	0.54 (0.37–0.80, p = 0.005)	0.56 (0.38–0.83, p = 0.016)
Reducing number of dental procedures	931 (97.5)	24 (2.5)	0.62 (0.39–0.97, p = 0.035)	-	-
PPE (aerosol generating procedures)
Surgical mask	662 (94.7)	37 (5.3)	1.70 (1.15–2.52, p = 0.008)	-	-
FFP2/FFP3/(K)N95 mask	3182 (96.6)	112 (3.4)	0.47 (0.26–0.84, p = 0.010)	-	-
Shoe covers	425 (94.4)	25 (5.6)	1.71 (1.09–2.69, p = 0.019)	0.98 (0.50–1.94, p = 0.963)	0.98 (0.50–1.95, p = 0.959)
Disposable gown	13 (86.7)	2 (13.3)	4.16 (0.93–18.65, p = 0.062)	-	-
PPE (non-aerosol generating procedures)
Surgical mask	1241 (95.0)	66 (5.0)	1.89 (1.32–2.69, p<0.001)	1.91 (1.32–2.76, p = 0.004)	1.88 (1.30–2.73, p = 0.008)
FFP2/FFP3/(K)N95 mask	2159 (97.3)	60 (2.7)	0.51 (0.36–0.73, p<0.001)	-	-
Shoe covers	249 (92.9)	19 (7.1)	2.22 (1.34–3.69, p = 0.002)	2.33 (1.09–5.01, p = 0.034)	2.31 (1.07–4.98, p = 0.054)

OR = odds ratio; 95% CI = 95% confident interval. PPE: personal protective equipment.

* Multivariate analysis with random region effect.

Discussion

This large survey followed a previous study assessing prevalence and risk indicators of first-wave COVID-19 among French dentists. To our best knowledge, this second study is the first to assess whether clinical practices have changed since the end of the first-wave pandemic, with specific focus on the putative impact of implementation of preventive measures.

At the time of data collection (September 8, 2020), our results confirmed that there was no strong evidence to confirm that dentists were at higher risk of COVID-19 than the general population (3.6% of dentists vs. 5.2% of the general population, www.santepubliquefrance.fr), workers in hospital settings (3.4%), nor than healthcare workers (4.0%) [13]. We also found that most infections occurred before French nationwide lockdown and probably almost none after the suspension of lockdown. This could be explained by (1) the global decline in SARS-CoV-2 circulation [14], (2) the indisputable mitigating effect of lockdown enforcement [15], and (3) the implementation of preventive measures, including adequate specific PPE enforced after lockdown [16, 17] and room ventilation between patients [18]. In our sample, the use of PPE was massively adopted during aerosol generating procedures, such as wearing FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks or safety googles (around 94%). Moreover, three quarters of the respondents treated fewer patients, and the multivariate analysis showed that reducing the number of patients was a specific protective indicator against COVID-19. Indeed, treating fewer patients allows proper implementation of disinfection and ventilation procedures between patients [19, 20]. This is consistent with the results of our first study, showing that changing one’s work rhythm was associated with decreased odds of COVID-19.

Although dentists were surprisingly not at higher risk of COVID-19 than the general population, we showed that the peak of infection for dentists occurred one week earlier than for the general population. This may highlight that dentists could have been overexposed to COVID-19 before the enforced lockdown and the implementation of preventive measures.

Interestingly, the multivariate analysis showed that wearing a surgical mask during non-aerosol generating procedures was a specific risk indicator of COVID-19. Some authors suggest that the practice of aerosol-generating procedures within a saliva-rich environment could be a major transmission route for respiratory viruses [18, 21, 22] whilst others have advocated that no copies of the SARS-COV-2 can be found in these aerosols, when appropriate prevention measures are taken [23]. However, during non-aerosol generating procedures, such as clinical interviewing or examination, the patient can talk, cough, scream or cry, all of which can also cause saliva projections and produce contaminated aerosols [24]. Wearing specific PPE (in particular FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks) should be warranted, including during non-aerosol generating procedures, with an emphasis on ventilation that can be indirectly monitored through the usage of CO2 readers [25].

Wearing shoe covers during non-aerosol generating procedures seemed to be a risk indicator of COVID-19. Actually, this variable was strongly associated with practice limited to periodontology (p = 0.01), a confounding variable. This is consistent with the results of our first study. Not only periodontologists seem to be highly exposed to airborne droplets [26, 27], but they also spend time on clinical interviews or examinations during which they could be infected especially if they did not wear specific PPE mask or wear it incorrectly [28]. This assumption could be extended to practice limited to pediatric dentistry, which was associated with increased odds of COVID-19 in the univariate analysis. Indeed, dentists are often closer to children than adults, and there are more contacts due to children motion and behavior.

We also showed other risk indicators of COVID-19, such as specific comorbidities (diabetes, thyroid disease, being overweight or obese), in adherence with risk factors identified in previous studies [29]. Using public transportation before lockdown was also associated with increased odds of COVID-19, similarly to previous results showing an increased risk of respiratory virus transmission due to proximity in a closed environment [30]. These results thus confirmed those found in our previous study.

After having introduced a random region effect in the multivariate analysis, reducing the number of patients still remained a protective indicator against COVID-19 and only wearing surgical masks during non-aerosol generating procedures remained a specific risk indicator of COVID-19. This could suggest that the aforementioned comorbidities, use of public transportation or having a limited practice such as periodontology could actually be factors associated with densely populated areas.

Our study has several limitations. First, the prevalence of COVID-19 among dentists could have been underestimated, as only one third of respondents have been tested. Nevertheless, the number of tested respondents has increased six-fold compared to the first study (<5%) [6], thus increasing its robustness. Second, it was not possible to establish causal relationships between being tested positive for COVID-19 and wearing a surgical mask during non-aerosol generating procedures. In the univariate analysis, we showed that COVID-19 positive respondents were less stressed for their personal health and wore fewer FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks during aerosol or non-aerosol generating procedures. It cannot be excluded that the infected dentists took higher risks by using less protection. Third, it was difficult to assign a date of contamination for people tested by serology. However, we asked for the date of onset of symptoms to try to get as close as possible to said date.

In conclusion, although dentists had a similar prevalence of COVID-19 infection as compared to the general population, our results suggest that they could be overexposed to COVID-19 without the implementation of specific preventive measures. In particular, dentists should reduce the number of patients to allow proper implementation of disinfection and ventilation procedures and wear specific PPE (FFP2, FFP3 or (K)N95 masks) including during non-aerosol generating procedures. Considering the similarities between COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections, these preventive measures may also be applicable to limit emerging variants spread as well as seasonal viral outbreaks.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

12 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-29169Application of recommended preventive measures against COVID-19 could help mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during dental practice: results from a follow-up survey of French dentistsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Smail-Faugeron,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The increased social contact is the main reason for the spread of COVID-19 and dentists are at high risk of infection due to their social interaction during the pandemic. This study investigates the French dentist population between July and September 2020 to examine the risk associated with COVID-19. An online questionnaire with 32 questions was divided into eight sections to collect the data about the risk associated with COVID-19, and then the data was subjected to proper statistical analysis. The present manuscript is well written and easy to understand. However, there are few formatting errors that could be resolve in the final submission. Therefore, there is technically no deficiency in the manuscript for rejection. The manuscript discusses few limitations, such as the prevalence of COVID-19 among dentists has been underestimated as only one-third of respondents have been tested, and second, how it is not possible to establish a causal relationship between being tested COVID-19 positive wearing a surgical mask during non-aerosol generating procedures. It is heartening to see authors discussing their results and its limitation in the same space. This study is relevant to publish in the current COVID-19 pandemic as it will help the clinician to understand future COVID-19 waves or another pandemic.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Application of recommended preventive measures against COVID-19 could help mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during dental practice: results from a followup survey of French dentists” by Diakonoff et al., explored whether implementation of preventive measures, including adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and room aeration between patients has had an impact on the contamination of dentists. Authors have concluded that wearing surgical masks during non-aerosol generating procedures was a risk factor of COVID-19, whereas reducing the number of patients was a protective factor. This is an interesting study; however, the manuscript still needs some changes.

Suggestions:

1. It will be interesting to know the COVID-19 risk among other health worker other than dentist during the same period.

2. At least one additional Figure (illustration) may be provided as to highlight the summary or prospect of this study.

3. Figures quality may be improved (high resolution).

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

30 Nov 2021

Dear Prof. Joerg Heber,

Dear Editors,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript and resubmit our paper for further consideration by PLOS ONE. We thank the reviewer for his/her comments and suggestions. Each of the comments and/or issues raised by the reviewer has been thoroughly addressed, detailed in a point-by-point response hereafter.

Please find enclosed the revised version of our manuscript incorporating all of the changes. All authors have read and approved the revised version of the manuscript; the manuscript has not been published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part, in any language,

Thank you for further considering our manuscript, which we hope is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Sincerely yours,

Dr Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron

Université de Paris – AP-HP

Paris, France

Journal requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

RESPONSE: The manuscript has been modified accordingly, including the file naming.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

RESPONSE: In adherence to French bylaw (Jardé law) requirements applicable at time of writing, data collection was conducted under strict control of the French data regulation committee (CNIL). Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and non-incentivized, and participants were informed of the data collection prior to the beginning of the survey. As such, participating in the survey was construed as implicit consent.

Revised Methods section, page 4: “Participants were informed of the data collection, study aims and relevant data protection measures.”

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

RESPONSE: We added a new reference: “Colomb-Cotinat M, Poujol I, Monluc S, Vaux S, Olivier C, Le Vu S, et al. Burden of COVID-19 on workers in hospital settings: The French situation during the first wave of the pandemic. Infectious diseases now. 2021;51(6):560-3.”

Review Comments to the Author

1. It will be interesting to know the COVID-19 risk among other health worker other than dentist during the same period.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his/her comment. We added a subsection in Discussion section to compare the COVID-19 risk between other health workers and dentists.

Revised Discussion section, page 11: “At the time of data collection (September 8, 2020), our results confirmed that there was no strong evidence to confirm that dentists were at higher risk of COVID-19 than the general population (3.6% of dentists vs. 5.2% of the general population, www.santepubliquefrance.fr), workers in hospital settings (3.4%), nor than healthcare workers (4.0%) [13].”

2. At least one additional Figure (illustration) may be provided as to highlight the summary or prospect of this study.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his/her comment. We added an additional Figure to highlight the prospect of this study. See Graphical abstract.

3. Figures quality may be improved (high resolution).

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for his/her comment. We have improved figures quality.

2 Dec 2021

Application of recommended preventive measures against COVID-19 could help mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during dental practice: results from a follow-up survey of French dentists

PONE-D-21-29169R1

Dear Dr. Smail-Faugeron,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

7 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-29169R1

Application of recommended preventive measures against COVID-19 could help mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection during dental practice: results from a follow-up survey of French dentists

Dear Dr. Smail-Faugeron:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE