Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance of minimizing exposure to aerosols generated during dental procedures. The authors' objective was to measure the aerosolized particles in the breathing zone of operators using several facial protection and filtration methods.

Methods: Twenty-one dentists performed maxillary anterior incisor veneer preparations using a microscope and drape and loupes with or without a face shield. In each test condition, the following 3 levels of filtration were tested: no filtration, a high-volume evacuator [HVE], and an HVE with an extraoral suction device. Measurements were made using a mass monitor attached to the operator's chest with inlet within 10 inches of the operator's face.

Results: The authors found that the microscope and drape provided the lowest levels of aerosolized particles compared with loupes with or without a face shield (P < .001). There was no detectable difference in the concentration of particles between operators wearing a face shield and wearing loupes alone (P = .47). The particles in each test condition were lowered when an HVE was used (P < .001) and further lowered with an extraoral suction device.

Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that the use of a surgical microscope and bag barrier drape, HVE, and extraoral suction device result in the lowest concentration of aerosolized particles. The face shield did not appear to offer any protection from aerosolized particles. HVE and extraoral suction were effective in decreasing aerosols regardless of the type of facial protection used.

Practical Implications: Dentists can reduce exposure to aerosols with a drape, HVE, and extraoral suction.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8885443PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2021.08.011DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

extraoral suction
24
aerosolized particles
16
face shield
16
hve extraoral
16
exposure aerosols
8
facial protection
8
microscope drape
8
loupes face
8
test condition
8
suction device
8

Similar Publications

Aerosol mitigation in upper airway surgery.

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol

November 2024

Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA.

Background: Aerosol generating procedures pose a risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and comprise a large percentage of cases performed in otolaryngology. An optimal method to mitigate this hazard does not currently exist. This study examined methods to mitigate surgical aerosols from the operating room.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the delivery of dental care globally. Air contamination during aerosol and splatter-generating procedures is of great concern to dental healthcare provider during these times. Extra oral suction (EOS) apparatus has been shown to be effective in preventing infection by control of aerosol.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Aim: This study aimed to assess oral suction devices in declining microbial airborne contamination level and particulate matter.

Materials And Methods: This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted in an educational hospital with 50 participants above 18 years of age, who had scheduled an appointment at a dental hygienist clinic for scaling procedure. Particulate matter and microbial airborne contamination levels were taken at the beginning for 15 min and during of scaling procedure.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Quantifying strategies to minimize aerosol dispersion in dental clinics.

Exp Comput Multiph Flow

March 2023

Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, Marquette University, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, 53226 USA.

Many dental procedures are aerosol-generating and pose a risk for the spread of airborne diseases, including COVID-19. Several aerosol mitigation strategies are available to reduce aerosol dispersion in dental clinics, such as increasing room ventilation and using extra-oral suction devices and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration units. However, many questions remain unanswered, including what the optimal device flow rate is and how long after a patient exits the room it is safe to start treatment of the next patient.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The dental setting is regarded as a high-risk environment for aerosol concentrations and transmission of respiratory infectious agents, especially in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although a number of approaches and practices have evolved to reduce the spread of pathogens in the dental setting, the risk of airborne infection remains a concern. Several new extraoral suction (EOS) devices have been marketed recently; further investigation is warranted to determine their clinical effectiveness.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!