CHX and a Face Shield Cannot Prevent Contamination of Surgical Masks

Bacterial contamination potential of personal protective equipment itself in dental aerosol-producing treatments

Personal protective equipment (PPE) has long been a high priority in dental aerosol-producing treatments. Since COVID-19 pandemic, its importance has increased yet again. While importance of PPE in preventing transmission and thus possible infection of pathogens is well known, contamination potential of PPE after treatment itself is less investigated. This review aims to give an overview of the current literature and contamination potential (viral, blood, bacterial) of components of protective equipment itself. The literature search was performed using the Medline database; furthermore, a hand search was conducted. Last search took place on 23 November 2022. Two categories of hygiene-related keywords were formed (category A: mask, face shield, goggles, eyewear, personal protective equipment; category B: contamination, aerosol). Each keyword from one category was combined with all keywords from the other one. In addition, the keyword "dental" was always added. First, a title and abstract screening was performed. Afterward, a full-text analysis was followed for the included studies. A total of 648 search hits were found in the Medline database. 47 were included after title and abstract screening. 22 studies were excluded after full-text analysis, 25 studies were included. The hand search resulted in 4 studies that were included. Bacterial contamination of PPE after treatment has been adequately studied, contamination with blood less. Microorganisms mainly originate from the oral and cutaneous flora; however, a transmission of potential pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli was also described. Studies showing transmission pathways starting from PPE and its various components are lacking. No measures have yet been described that fully protect the protective equipment from contamination. There is growing awareness that PPE itself can be a source of pathogen transmission, and thus possible infection. Therefore, not only wearing of protective clothing, but also conscious handling of it is crucial for transmission and possible infection prevention. However, studies showing transmission pathways starting from PPE and its various components are lacking. Several studies have investigated what measures can be taken to protect the protective equipment itself. So far, none of the methods evaluated can prevent contamination of PPE.

Dental aerosol-producing treatments: Comparison of contamination patterns of face shields and surgical masks

During the COVID-19 pandemic, dental face shields were recommended to protect the eyes. This study aimed to examine to what extent face shield and mask contamination differ when a pre-procedural mouth rinsing with Chlorhexidine (CHX) is conducted before treatment. In this prospective, randomized study, three groups of subjects were formed (rinsing with 0.1% CHX, water, or no rinsing (control) before aerosol-producing treatments). After each of the 301 treatments, the practitioner's face shield was swabbed with eSwab and the mask was brought into contact with agar plates. Sampling was done from the exterior surface only. Samples were cultured for 48 h at 35 °C under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Bacteria were classified by phenotypic characteristics, biochemical test methods, and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Colony-forming units were counted and mean values were compared (WSR, H-test, U-test, p < 0.05). Within each subject group, face shields showed significantly more contamination than surgical masks (control group: 350 CFU, 50 CFU; intervention water: 270 CFU, 40 CFU; intervention CHX: 250 CFU, 30 CFU). Comparison of face shields of the different subject groups did not reveal any statistically significant differences. However, CHX resulted in a statistically significant bacterial reduction on surgical masks compared to the water and control group (control: 50 CFU, intervention water: 40 CFU, intervention CHX: 30 CFU). Contamination of face shields and surgical masks was highest in the control group, followed by the water group, and lowest in the intervention group with CHX. Streptococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. dominated, representing the oral and cutaneous flora. Contamination of masks worn with or without face shields did not differ. Presumably, face shields intercept first splashes and droplets, while the masks were mainly exposed to bioaerosol mist. Consequently, face shields protect the facial region and surroundings from splashes and droplets, but not the mask itself. A pre-procedural mouth rinse with CHX had no statistically significant reducing effect on contamination of the face shield, but a statistically significant reducing effect was observed on contamination of the mask.

Aerosol-generating procedures and associated control/mitigation measures: Position paper from the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and the American Dental Hygienists' Association

Background

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, how to reduce the risk of spreading viruses and other microorganisms while performing aerosolgenerating procedures (AGPs) has become a challenging question within the dental and dental hygiene communities. The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of various mitigation methods used to reduce the risk of infection transmission during AGPs in dentistry.

Methods

The authors searched 6 databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar-for relevant scientific evidence published between January 2012 and December 2022 to answer 6 research questions about the risk of transmission, methods, devices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) used to reduce contact with microbial pathogens and limit the spread of aerosols.

Results

A total of 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The literature on the risk of infection transmission including SARS-CoV-2 between dental hygienists and their patients is limited. Although several mouthrinses are effective in reducing bacterial contaminations in aerosols, their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 is also limited. The combined use of eyewear, masks, and face shields is effective in preventing contamination of the facial and nasal region while performing AGPs. High-volume evacuation with or without an intraoral suction, low-volume evacuation, saliva ejector, and rubber dam (when appropriate) have shown effectiveness in reducing aerosol transmission beyond the generation site. Finally, the appropriate combination of ventilation and filtration in dental operatories is effective in limiting the spread of aerosols.

Discussion and Conclusion

Aerosols produced during clinical procedures can pose a risk of infection transmission between dental hygienists and their patients. The implementation of practices supported by available evidence will ensure greater patient and provider safety in oral health settings. More studies in oral health clinical environments would shape future practices and protocols, ultimately to ensure the delivery of safe clinical care.

Detection of viable oral bacteria of the patient on the surgical mask of dentists

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Bioaerosols contaminate the personal protective equipment (PPE), especially masks. The PPE harbors microorganisms from various sources. However, no previous studies have investigated the specific sources of bacteria found on used masks and their correlation with those from the treated patient.

SETTING, DESIGN, MATERIAL AND METHODS

Intraoral samples from the patient were collected prior to dental aerosol-producing treatments using a nylon flock fiber swab. After treatment, the practitioner's mask was imprinted onto agar plates.

MAIN OUTCOME METHODS

Following cultivation, colony forming units were counted and identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). After the samples were analyzed, the intraoral samples as well as the mask samples were assessed for the presence of identical species, which were subsequently quantified.

RESULTS

126 treatments were included. One species match occurred most frequently (26.2%), followed by two (11.9%%) and three or more (3.97%). In the intraoral samples, Neisseria subflava occurred most often, within mask samples Staphylococcus epidermidis were detected most. Staphylococcus aureus could be cultivated three times more often in intraoral samples than on the mask.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Oral microorganisms originating from the patient's oral cavity can be found on the outside of masks. When using PPE during treatments, it should therefore always be in mind that potentially pathogenic microorganisms may land on the mask becoming a source of for itself.