Le regole di gestione dello studio odontoiatrico: dispositivi di protezione individuale (DPI)

Bioburden Variation of Filtering Face Piece Respirators over Time: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

The microbial contamination of a respirator can be evaluated through a count of the number of bacteria living on a non-sterilized surface (bioburden). This preliminary study investigated the external contamination of two different FFP2s over time by studying the bioburden values in increasing exposure times.

METHODS

FFP2 respirators of two different brands were used during routine clinical settings and examined through the bioburden test; for each brand, three devices were tested at 8, 16, and 30 h.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between mask brands (p = 0.113). There were only significant CFU differences between each mask and its control (p = 0.027 and p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Both brands of respirators were found to be contaminated and this contamination increased with the increase in exposure time. Further studies are needed to investigate the exact amount of contamination that could be considered acceptable before discarding each used mask.

Variation of Efficacy of Filtering Face Pieces Respirators over Time in a Dental Setting: A Pilot Study

Since aerosol continuously persists in dental settings, where different procedures and patients come in succession, the use of oronasal masks is highly recommended. Among them, respirators known as Filtering Face Pieces (FFP) show a protective superiority compared to surgical masks. Even concerning respirators classified as non-reusable, it is not known how many hours of use are necessary to compromise their filtering capacity. The aim of this study is to investigate the variations of filtering capacity of an FFP2 respirator over time, in order to safely optimize the timing of its use. Five respirators were worn by the same operator during clinical activity for different usage times (8, 16, 24, 32, 40 h), and one respirator was kept unused. All respirators underwent a bacterial filtration efficacy (BFE) test. T-test for paired data with Bootstrap technique and Wilcoxon test for paired data compared BFE values of the five tested FFP2s respectively at each time, and the areas with the corresponding values of the control respirator (FFp2-F). A generalized linear mixed effect model (GLM) was applied considering type of respirator and time as fixed effects and intercept as random effect. No significant statistical differences were present in the BFE of each time. Data obtained by the present study highlight the important ability of FFP2s to maintain their BFE over time, suggesting a long lasting protective function.

COVID-19 Dentistry-Related Aspects: A Literature Overview

A new coronavirus (Sars-CoV-2) was detected in China at the end of 2019 and has since caused a worldwide pandemic. This virus is responsible for an acute respiratory syndrome (COVID-19), distinguished by a potentially lethal interstitial bilateral pneumonia. Because Sars-CoV-2 is highly infective through airborne contamination, the high infection risk in the dental environment is a serious problem for both professional practitioners and patients. This literature overview provides a description of the clinical aspects of COVID-19 and its transmission, while supplying valuable information regarding protection and prevention measures.

Covid-19 Pandemic: What Changes for Dentists and Oral Medicine Experts? A Narrative Review and Novel Approaches to Infection Containment

The authors performed a narrative review on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome- CoronaVirus-2 ( SARS-CoV-2) and all infectious agents with the primary endpoints to illustrate the most accepted models of safety protocols in dentistry and oral medicine, and to propose an easy view of the problem and a comparison (pre- vs post-COVID19) for the most common dental procedures. The outcome is forecast to help dentists to individuate for a given procedure the differences in terms of safety protocols to avoid infectious contagion (by SARS-CoV-2 and others dangerous agents). An investigation was performed on the online databases Pubmed and Scopus using a combination of free words and Medical Subject Headings (MESH) terms: "dentist" OR "oral health" AND "COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2" OR "coronavirus-19". After a brief excursus on all infectious agents transmittable at the dental chair, the authors described all the personal protective equipment (PPE) actually on the market and their indications, and on the basis of the literature, they compared (before and after COVID-19 onset) the correct safety procedures for each dental practice studied, underlining the danger of underestimating, in general, dental cross-infections. The authors have highlighted the importance of knowing exactly the risk of infections in the dental practice, and to modulate correctly the use of PPE, in order to invest adequate financial resources and to avoid exposing both the dental team and patients to preventable risks.

Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids in a department of oral sciences: results of a thirteen-year surveillance study

Objectives. Aim of this analysis was to identify trends that will aid in the prevention of injury. Methods. Our data were collected from 1999 to 2011 during a surveillance program of occupational exposures to blood or other potentially infectious materials in a Dental School by using a standard coded protocol. Results. 63 exposures were reported. 56/63 (89%) percutaneous and 7/63 (11%) mucosal, involving a splash to the eye of the dental care workers (DCW). 25/63 (40%) involved students, 23/63 (36%) DCW attending masters and doctorate, 13/63 (21%) DCW attending as tutors and 2/63 (3%) staff. 45/63 (71%) and 18/63 (29%) occurred respectively during and after the use of the device; of last ones, 1/18 (0.05%) were related to instrument clean-up and 1/18 (0.05%) to laboratory activity, 12/18 (67%) occurred when a DCW collided with a sharp object during the setting, and 4/18 (22%) during other activities. The instrument and the body part most likely involved were needle and finger respectively. The overall exposure rate was 4.78 per 10,000 patient visits. Conclusions Our results may serve as benchmark that Dental Schools can employ to assess their frequency of injury.