[ad_1]
The Danish study, published on Wednesday, was conducted by researchers at the University of Copenhagen and was conducted among 4,862 people who spent at least three hours a day outdoors and in contact with others for 30 days in April and May. this year. This was during a period when two percent of the Danish population was infected.
The 4,862 who completed the study was part of a group of 6,024 randomly selected. The results did not show significant differences between the group that used oral protection and the group that did not use protection.
After 30 days, 1.8 percent (42 people) of those wearing mouth guards had been infected with the coronavirus and 2.1 percent (53 people) of the group using no protection at all.
The study has only examined the extent to which the person wearing the mouthguard is protected from infection, not whether the mouthguard protects other people from infection. The study was also conducted during a period when few in Denmark wore mouth guards and where the Danish government had not recommended that residents do so.
The researchers behind the study notes that there is good evidence that mouth guards play an important role in healthcare, reducing the risk of becoming infected with COVID-19 by more than half, among other things. Mouth guards used during surgery (surgical mouth guards) have also been shown to be three times more effective than simpler guards.
However, the researchers note that there are some problems with wearing mouth guards in the community:
● Mouth guards are misused
● They are not used all the time.
● Mouth guards may not last as well due to the circumstances in which they are worn.
● That the shields do not cover the eyes, which can cause the infection to be transmitted in this way
According to the researchers, there are several positives of wearing a mouth guard in case everyone does. Among other things, it reduces the stigma that many people feel for wearing protection and increases awareness that a contagious disease exists in society.
The study also showed that a large group did not wear the mouth guard as expected. Only 46 percent achieved this, while 47 percent generally did. Seven percent used mouth guards incorrectly.
Previous studies have shown that a person touches their face approximately every three minutes. 44 percent of the time by mouth or nose.
“Our results show that recommendations to use surgical mouth guards do not reduce the way that those who wear protection become infected in settings where physical distancing and other infection control measures already exist, and where the recommendation to use mouth guards is not one of them, and where the use of mouth guards in society was unusual, “the researchers write.
The researchers also state that mouth guards themselves should not be viewed as a substitute for other protective measures, such as washing hands and keeping your distance.
But the study has already received criticism, not least because it was carried out during a period when the spread of infection in Denmark was very low and that researchers had to rely on the subjects themselves when assessing whether the mouthguard was worn correctly.
“There is no question that mouth protection works as a way to control infection,” Dr. Thomas Frieden, former US CDC director, tells The New York Times.
– A mouth guard designed for surgeons is better than a cloth mask, but a cloth mask is better than nothing.
Another reviewer is Susan Ellenberg, biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Ellenberg states that the study does not show any statistically reliable results:
“Nothing in this study shows that wearing a mouth guard doesn’t make sense,” he told the New York Times.
She is supported by Dr. Elizabeth Halloran, statistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle:
– If you show this report to a caregiver who works with covid in a hospital, I doubt that he or she will say that they have convinced you not to use protection.
Kjell Torén, teacher and The chief physician of the department of community medicine and public health at Sahlgrenska Hospital in Gothenburg, who was not involved in the study, says in an interview with DN that it is “a well done randomized study in the cultural context in which we live.”
– My assessment is that this study is not an argument against oral protection, but it is not an argument in favor of oral protection either. Show that you must be careful in your posture, says Kjell Torén.
