OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in the form of mouthwash and nasal spray as an auxiliary treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Forty hospitalized patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using a reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test were evaluated. They were randomly divided into an experimental group (n= 20; gargling with 1.0% H2O2 and nasal wash with 0.5% H2O2) or a control group (n= 20). The solutions were used for 7 days and the patients were monitored every 2 days, for a total of 8 days. At check-ups, patients were asked about their symptoms and possible adverse effects of the solutions. The presence and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of symptoms were recorded. Data were compared using the Student test and the Fisher exact test (α= 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the length of hospital stay (p= 0.65). The most frequent symptom on day 0 was coughing (72.0% in the experimental group and 76.5% in the control group), which abated over time. There was no significant difference between the groups in the evaluated symptoms. Most (75.0%) of the patients in the experimental group presented a reduction in dyspnea between days 0 and 2. Few patients reported adverse effects from the use of the solutions. CONCLUSIONS H2O2 as a mouthwash and nasal spray is safe to use. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that H2O2 is effective as an auxiliary treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in the form of mouthwash and nasal spray as an auxiliary treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Forty hospitalized patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using a reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test were evaluated. They were randomly divided into an experimental group (n= 20; gargling with 1.0% H2O2 and nasal wash with 0.5% H2O2) or a control group (n= 20). The solutions were used for 7 days and the patients were monitored every 2 days, for a total of 8 days. At check-ups, patients were asked about their symptoms and possible adverse effects of the solutions. The presence and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of symptoms were recorded. Data were compared using the Student test and the Fisher exact test (α= 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the length of hospital stay (p= 0.65). The most frequent symptom on day 0 was coughing (72.0% in the experimental group and 76.5% in the control group), which abated over time. There was no significant difference between the groups in the evaluated symptoms. Most (75.0%) of the patients in the experimental group presented a reduction in dyspnea between days 0 and 2. Few patients reported adverse effects from the use of the solutions. CONCLUSIONS H2O2 as a mouthwash and nasal spray is safe to use. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that H2O2 is effective as an auxiliary treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

PURPOSE: . The study objective was to evaluate the influence of the type of resin cement on the flexural strength and load to fracture of two chairside CADCAM materials after aging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . A polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) and a nanoceramic resin (RNC) were used to produce the specimens. Two types of dual-cure resin cements, a self-adhesive and a universal, were investigated. Bilayer specimens were produced (n = 10) and aged for 6 months in a humid environment before the biaxial flexural strength test (σ f ).Bonded specimens were subjected to a mechanical aging protocol (50 N, 2 Hz, 37°C water, 500,000 cycles) before the compressive load test (L f ). σ f and L f data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = .05). Chi-square test was used to analyze the relationship between failure mode and experimental group (α = .05). RESULTS: . The type of resin cement and the interaction between factors had no effect on the σ f and L f of the specimens, while the type of restorative material was significant. RNC had higher σ f and L f than PICN. There was a significant association among the type of cracks identified for specimens tested in L f and the restorative material. CONCLUSION . The type of resin cement had no effect on the flexural strength and load to fracture of the two investigated CAD-CAM chairside materials after aging. [J Adv Prosthodont 2023;15:136-44]