Oral — Health, Diseases, Therapies, and Technologies

Background/Objectives: This prospective cohort study investigated gingival inflammation and salivary active matrix metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP-8) in German elite biathletes and cross-country skiers over a competitive season compared with non-athletes. Methods: In 33 athletes (group A), dental examinations were performed pre-season (t1), in-season (t2, 11 weeks) and at the competition highlight (t3, 24 weeks); 61 age-, sex- and smoking-matched non-athletes (group B) were examined at identical intervals. Salivary aMMP-8 (point-of-care test) and gingival bleeding (Bleeding on Brushing Index, BOB) were assessed at all time points, and periodontal treatment need (Periodontal Screening Index, PSI) and plaque (Plaque Index, PI) at t1. Longitudinal courses were analysed using generalised estimating equations and linear mixed models; between-group p-values were Holm-adjusted. Results: At t1, PSI ≥ 3 (A: 61%, B: 48%) and PI (0.3 ± 0.3 vs. 0.4 ± 0.3) did not differ significantly. Group × time interactions were not significant (aMMP-8: p = 0.55; BOB: p = 0.27). aMMP-8 positivity was lower in athletes only at t3 (20% vs. 43%; p = 0.04; Holm-adjusted p = 0.11). BOB was lower in athletes at all time points (t1: 0.35 ± 0.15 vs. 0.45 ± 0.15; t3: 0.23 ± 0.18 vs. 0.35 ± 0.22; Holm-adjusted p = 0.03 each); its decrease in both groups (p < 0.001) coincided with a methodological change after t1. Conclusions: No season-related increase in aMMP-8 positivity or gingival bleeding was observed in athletes. The lower gingival bleeding in athletes preceded the season, whereas the aMMP-8 difference was not robust. These findings are hypothesis-generating.

Background: Adequate knowledge of sterilization procedures and monitoring is essential for infection prevention in dental practice. This study evaluated knowledge of sterilization equipment among final-year dental trainees in San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among Social Service dental trainees from three universities. Of 214 eligible students, 174 participated (81.3%). Knowledge was assessed using a 16-item questionnaire covering sterilization methods, procedures, monitoring, equipment maintenance, and causes of failure. Total scores ranged from 0 to 16 and were descriptively classified as low (0–5), moderate (6–11), or high (12–16). Results: The mean knowledge score was 10.39 ± 1.90, and 70.7% of participants were classified in the moderate-score category. Knowledge of general sterilization concepts and equipment maintenance was high, whereas important gaps were identified in monitoring procedures. Only 29.3% correctly identified a chemical indicator, 35.6% identified the biological indicator recommended by the Mexican standard, 32.2% identified Geobacillus stearothermophilus for steam sterilization, 16.7% identified Bacillus atrophaeus for dry heat, and 25.9% knew the biological monitoring frequency established by NOM-013-SSA2-2015. Monitoring scores differed by sex (p = 0.042), but sex and age were not independently associated with a high total knowledge score in the adjusted model. Sensitivity analyses consistently showed that the moderate-score category remained predominant after potentially problematic questionnaire items were excluded. Conclusions: Final-year dental trainees showed high correct-response frequencies for general sterilization concepts but important knowledge gaps in biological monitoring and operational sterilization parameters. These findings support targeted curricular reinforcement of biological sterilization monitoring, equipment operating parameters, and practical infection control competencies before graduates enter independent dental practice.

Background: Physicians and nurses can contribute to oral health promotion and the recognition of conditions requiring dental assessment, but their preparation for these roles may be limited. This study assessed oral health knowledge, perceptions, self-reported practices, and perceived training needs among primary healthcare (PHC) professionals in northern Portugal. Methods: A cross-sectional study included 103 physicians (43.7%) and nurses (56.3%) who completed a structured online questionnaire. Performance was assessed using 11 knowledge items, including single-choice, multiple-response, and open-ended formats, and one clinical vignette. A study-specific 12-component score was used in comparative and multivariable analyses. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: All participants considered oral health important (100%), and 97% expressed interest in further training; 18.4% reported previous specific oral health training. The mean percentage of responses meeting the scoring criteria across the 11 knowledge items was 54.5%. Participants with previous training had higher scores in the reported unadjusted analysis (62.3% vs. 56.0%; mean difference: 6.33 percentage points; 95% CI: 0.05–12.61; p = 0.048). Educational qualification was also associated with scores in the reported unadjusted analysis. Neither association met the significance threshold after adjustment (training: p = 0.160). Conclusions: Respondents expressed positive attitudes and substantial perceived training needs, with lower performance on selected preventive topics. These regional, exploratory findings should be interpreted in light of the non-validated instrument and uncertainty in some scoring criteria. They support further assessment of educational needs, but do not establish the effectiveness of training or clinical competence.