Efficacy of Preprocedural Boric Acid Mouthrinse in Reducing Viable Bacteria in Dental Aerosols Produced during Ultrasonic Scaling

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce aerosol generation in dental environments: A systematic review

Certain dental procedures produce high levels of aerosols containing pathogenic microorganisms, posing a risk for the transmission of infections in dental settings. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of various aerosol mitigation interventions during clinical dental procedures in real-world environments. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for English studies up to March 2023 according to the PRISMA guidelines. Only peer-reviewed controlled clinical trials (CCT) or randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies involving human subjects were included. The risk of bias of selected researches were evaluated by two independent authors using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The literature search yielded 3491 articles, of which 42 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Most studies evaluated bacterial contamination in bio-aerosols, while the viral and fungal contamination was assessed in only three studies. Overall, various approaches have been applied in reducing aerosol contamination in clinical scenarios, including high-volume evacuators (HVE), mouse rinses and rubber dams, air cleaning systems, and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. The available evidence suggests that various aerosol mitigation strategies could be implemented to decrease the risk of cross-infection during clinical dental procedures in real-world environments. However, further clinical trials are necessary to establish statistical validity in measuring aerosol contamination and mitigation, as well as to evaluate the risk of infection transmission for viral and fungal contamination.

Effects of boric acid and potassium metaborate on cytokine levels and redox stress parameters in a wound model infected with methicillin‑resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections are usually found in hospital settings and, frequently, in patients with open wounds. One of the most critical virulence factors affecting the severity and recurrence of infections is the biofilm; increasing antibiotic resistance due to biofilm formation has led to the search for alternative compounds to antibiotics. The present study aimed to use boric acid and potassium metaborate against MRSA infection in a fibroblast wound model. For this purpose, a two-part experiment was designed: First, MRSA strains were used for the test, and both boric acid and potassium metaborate were prepared in microdilution. In the second step, an MRSA wound model was prepared using a fibroblast culture, and treatments with boric acid and potassium metaborate were applied for 24 h. For the evaluation of the effects of treatment, cell viability assay (MTT assay), analysis of redox stress parameters, including total oxidant status and total antioxidant capacity analyses, lactate dehydrogenase analysis and immunohistochemical staining were performed. In addition, IL-1β and IL-10 gene expression levels were assayed. According to the results, potassium metaborate was more effective and exhibited a lower toxicity to fibroblast cells compared to boric acid; moreover, potassium metaborate decreased the level of prooxidant species and increased the antioxidant status more effectively than boric acid. The IL-1β level in the bacteria group was high; however, boric acid and potassium metaborate significantly decreased the expression levels of inflammatory markers, exhibiting the potential to improve the resolution of the lesion. On the whole, the findings of the present study suggest that boric acid and potassium metaborate may be effective on the tested microorganisms.

Preprocedural mouth rinses for preventing transmission of infectious diseases through aerosols in dental healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Aerosols and spatter are generated in a dental clinic during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) that use high-speed hand pieces. Dental healthcare providers can be at increased risk of transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis, measles and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) through droplets on mucosae, inhalation of aerosols or through fomites on mucosae, which harbour micro-organisms. There are ways to mitigate and contain spatter and aerosols that may, in turn, reduce any risk of disease transmission. In addition to personal protective equipment (PPE) and aerosol-reducing devices such as high-volume suction, it has been hypothesised that the use of mouth rinse by patients before dental procedures could reduce the microbial load of aerosols that are generated during dental AGPs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data  MAIN RESULTS:  We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias.  None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers.  The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent.  The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.