Qualitative and quantitative analysis of bacterial aerosols in dental clinical settings: Risk exposure towards dentist, auxiliary staff, and patients

Management of SARS-CoV-2 Prevention Methods in Dental Offices-A Cross-Sectional Study in Bucharest, Romania

We compared the managing of prevention methods for SARS-CoV-2 infections in dental offices before and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to find out the varieties of infection prevention methods used by dentists before and during the pandemic and compare them. We designed a digital transversal questionnaire with 15 closed questions that was sent to 150 dentists in Bucharest, Romania. We received n = 112 valid answers during July-August 2021 from dentists of all age groups (25-60 years), with a sex ratio of 0.36, which agreed to anonymously participate in this study. The results showed an increase in types and amount of personal protection equipment (i.e., ocular/facial protection, supplemental gown, and upgrading the FFP1 masks to FFP2 or FFP3). Ocular protection showed statistical significance by gender but not by age group. Vaccination rate against SARS-CoV-2 was at 80% of the participant dentists at the time of the survey and had statistical significance. However, vaccination status of the patients did not alter dentists' protection protocol.

[Risks, contamination and prevention against COVID-19 in dental work: a review]

INTRODUCTION

In April 2020 The COVID-19 pandemic caused more than one million infections and 54 600 deaths to date around the world. The spread of SARS-CoV-2 is rapid, and its transmission is through droplets of saliva, hence its importance in dentistry.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the main risks, transmission routes and prevention measures against COVID-19.

METHODS

A review of the scientific literature of the last two years on the subject was carried out in the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and Research Gate databases. The descriptors used were: "coronavirus", "COVID-19", "dental", "dentistry", "oral", "stomatology", and "aerosol". 350 articles were found, but 50 were selected for their topicality, relationship, and focus. The transmission of the COVID-19 is carried out mainly through saliva drops, aerosols and fomites. The virus can subsist for a time on the environment and surfaces. Dentists are health workers who are at risk of contagion because several of their procedures release aerosols. The biosecurity in the exercise of this profession must be strict and extreme, also the cleaning and disinfection of the environment and contact surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

In the dental profession the potential risk of contamination among operators, assistants and patients is high. Knowing the causative agent and the disease allows you to reduce the possibility of contagion. The dentist must consider patients as suspects to COVID-19 and apply biosecurity at all levels.

Infection Control in Dental Clinics: Prosthodontics Perspectives

AIM

The aim of this article is to discuss the infection control measures with focus on those related to prosthodontic work.

BACKGROUND

The risk of transmission of several infectious microorganisms during dental procedures and the increased awareness and knowledge of infectious diseases have led to an increased attention to the importance of infection control. Prosthodontists and dental personnel are exposed directly or indirectly to a significant risk of acquiring healthcare-associated infections.

REVIEW RESULTS

High standards of occupational safety and dental infection control must be applied by dental personnel for the safety of patients and dental healthcare workers. All reusable items (critical and semicritical instruments) that come in contact with the patient's saliva, blood, or mucous membranes must be heat-sterilized. Proper disinfectants should be used to disinfect nonsterilizable instruments (e.g., wax knifes, dental shade plastic mixing spatula, guides, fox bite plane, articulators, and facebows).

CONCLUSION

In prosthodontics, items potentially contaminated with patient's blood and saliva are transported between dental clinics and dental laboratories. Such fluids may contain microorganisms with high potential for transmission of several diseases. Therefore, sterilization and disinfection of all items used during prosthodontic work should be part of infection control protocol in dental care setting.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In prosthodontic practice, a strict infection prevention plan should be implemented to minimalize the risk of infectious diseases transmission among prosthodontists, dental office, dental laboratory personnel, and patients.

Sources of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Microorganisms in Dental Aerosols

On March 16, 2020, 198,000 dentists in the United States closed their doors to patients, fueled by concerns that aerosols generated during dental procedures are potential vehicles for transmission of respiratory pathogens through saliva. Our knowledge of these aerosol constituents is sparse and gleaned from case reports and poorly controlled studies. Therefore, we tracked the origins of microbiota in aerosols generated during ultrasonic scaling, implant osteotomy, and restorative procedures by combining reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (to identify and quantify SARS-CoV-2) and 16S sequencing (to characterize the entire microbiome) with fine-scale enumeration and source tracking. Linear discriminant analysis of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity distances revealed significant class separation between the salivary microbiome and aerosol microbiota deposited on the operator, patient, assistant, or the environment (P < 0.01, analysis of similarities). We also discovered that 78% of the microbiota in condensate could be traced to the dental irrigant, while saliva contributed to a median of 0% of aerosol microbiota. We also identified low copy numbers of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the saliva of several asymptomatic patients but none in aerosols generated from these patients. Together, the bacterial and viral data encourage us to conclude that when infection control measures are used, such as preoperative mouth rinses and intraoral high-volume evacuation, dental treatment is not a factor in increasing the risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic patients and that standard infection control practices are sufficiently capable of protecting personnel and patients from exposure to potential pathogens. This information is of immediate urgency, not only for safe resumption of dental treatment during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but also to inform evidence-based selection of personal protection equipment and infection control practices at a time when resources are stretched and personal protection equipment needs to be prioritized.

Risk Perception of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implementation of Various Protective Measures by Dentists Across Various Countries

Objective: Healthcare workers in general are at a high risk of potential infections with COVID-19, especially those who work with aerosol generating procedures. Dentists fall in this category, as not only do they operate with aerosol generating procedures but also operate within a face-to-face contact area. Methods: A structured self-administered questionnaire was developed at Najran University and provided to the participants for data collection. The data collected included information on risk perception and incorporation of measures for protection against COVID-19 to gauge the attitude of dentists during this period. Also, clinical implementation of various protective measures was reviewed. Results: Of the n = 322 dentists that answered the questions, 50% were general dentists and 28.9% were dentists working at specialist clinics, while the remaining 21.1% of dentists were employed in academic institutions. Among the newer additions to the clinic, 36.3% of dentists answered that they had added atomizers to their practices, followed by 26.4% of dentists that had incorporated the use of UV lamps for sterilization. We found that 18.9% dentists were using HEPA filters in their clinics, while 9.9% of dentists were making use of fumigation devices to control the risk of infection. One-way ANOVA was also carried out to demonstrate that there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.049) between groups of dentists utilizing HEPA filters, UV lamps, atomizers, and fumigation devices to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV2 across their workplaces. Conclusion: Dentists are aware of recently updated knowledge about the modes of transmission of COVID-19 and the recommended infection control measures in dental settings. A better understanding of the situation and methods to prevent it will ensure that the dental community is able to provide healthcare services to patients during the pandemic.

Mitigating saliva aerosol contamination in a dental school clinic

Background

Transmission of COVID-19 via salivary aerosol particles generated when using handpieces or ultrasonic scalers is a major concern during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the spread of dental aerosols on patients and dental providers during aerosol-generating dental procedures.

Methods

This pilot study was conducted with one volunteer. A dental unit used at the dental school for general dental care was the site of the experiment. Before the study, three measurement meters (DustTrak 8534, PTrak 8525 and AeroTrak 9306) were used to measure the ambient distribution of particles in the ambient air surrounding the dental chair. The volunteer wore a bouffant, goggles, and shoe covers and was seated in the dental chair in supine position, and covered with a surgical drape. The dentist and dental assistant donned bouffant, goggles, face shields, N95 masks, surgical gowns and shoe covers. The simulation was conducted by using a high-speed handpiece with a diamond bur operating in the oral cavity for 6 min without touching the teeth. A new set of measurement was obtained while using an ultrasonic scaler to clean all teeth of the volunteer. For both aerosol generating procedures, the aerosol particles were measured with the use of saliva ejector (SE) and high-speed suction (HSS) followed a separate set of measurement with the additional use of an extra oral high-volume suction (HVS) unit that was placed close to the mouth to capture the aerosol in addition to SE and HSS. The distribution of the air particles, including the size and concentration of aerosols, was measured around the patient, dentist, dental assistant, 3 feet above the patient, and the floor.

Results

Four locations were identified with elevated aerosol levels compared to the baseline, including the chest of the dentist, the chest of patient, the chest of assistant and 3 feet above the patient. The use of additional extra oral high volume suction reduced aerosol to or below the baseline level.

Conclusions

The increase of the level of aerosol with size less than 10 µm was minimal during dental procedures when using SE and HSS. Use of HVS further reduced aerosol levels below the ambient levels.

Aerosols Generated during Endodontic Treatment: A Special Concern during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to investigate aerosolized microorganisms generated during endodontic emergencies and nonsurgical root canal therapy (NSRCT), to assess the spread of airborne microbes, and to verify the spatial distribution of airborne microbial spread.

METHODS

A total of 45 endodontic procedures were sampled, including full pulpotomy (n = 15), pulpectomy (n = 15), and NSRCT (n = 15). Samples were collected during room resting and after treatment. The passive air sampling technique using settle plates was applied. Agar plates were set at different locations in the operatory. The colony-forming unit (CFU) was counted in brain-heart infusion blood agar plates. A set of agar plates containing selective chromogenic culture media was used for the isolation and presumptive identification of target microorganisms. Fungi were investigated using Sabouraud dextrose agar.

RESULTS

Pulpotomy generated the lowest mean CFU count (P < .05). There was no difference between the mean CFU counts found in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P > .05). A higher mean CFU count was found close to the patient's mouth (0.5 m) than at a 2-m distance in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P < .05). There was no difference between the mean CFU count found in front of the patient's mouth versus diagonal in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P > .05). Staphylococcus aureus (22/45, 48.8%) was the most frequent bacteria species. Longer treatment times were associated with higher CFU counts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicated that pulpotomy generates less aerosolized microorganisms than pulpectomy and NSRCT. The proximity to the patient's mouth and the treatment duration were implicated in the level of contamination.

Methods to mitigate infection spread from aerosol-generating dental procedures

Infection control measures play a critical role in preventing the spread of disease in healthcare settings. Concerns that SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019, may be transmitted through droplets and aerosols from both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals has turned the spotlight on healthcare interventions that involve aerosol generation in the oral cavity, such as many dental and periodontal procedures. This commentary seeks to familiarize the dental practitioner with various infection control methods that may be implemented to mitigate spread of infection in dental settings through aerosol-generating dental procedures.

Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

Many dental procedures produce aerosols (droplets, droplet nuclei and splatter) that harbour various pathogenic micro-organisms and may pose a risk for the spread of infections between dentist and patient. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to greater concern about this risk.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from the 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. We assessed heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth. The results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU. High-volume evacuator Use of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD -47.41, 95% CI -92.76 to -2.06; 3 RCTs, 122 participants (two studies had split-mouth design); very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD -1.00, -2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants). One split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU -2.30, 95% CI -5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD -2.20, 95% CI -14.01 to 9.61). Dental isolation combination system One RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD -0.35, -0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD -125.20, 95% CI -174.02 to -76.38) or HVE (MD -109.30, 95% CI -153.01 to -65.59). Rubber dam One split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD -16.20, 95% CI -19.36 to -13.04) and two-metre distance (MD -11.70, 95% CI -15.82 to -7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.00). One split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD -251.00, 95% CI -267.95 to -234.05) and dental unit light (MD -12.70, 95% CI -12.85 to -12.55). Air cleaning systems One split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD -66.70 CFU, 95% CI -120.15 to -13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD -32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to -13.25). Another CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD -483.56 CFU, 95% CI -550.02 to -417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD -319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to -252.68). Disinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants Two RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD -124.00, 95% CI -135.78 to -112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD -656.45, 95% CI -672.74 to -640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD -644.55, 95% CI -668.70 to -620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD -59.30, 95% CI -64.16 to -54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD -11.90, 95% CI -35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols. All of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions. We did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging. Studies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.

Reducing the Risk of COVID-19 Transmission in Dental Offices: A Review

The COVID-19 epidemic has become a major public health challenge around the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of August 2020 there are more than 833,556 dead and over 24,587,513 people infected around the world. This pandemic has adversely affected many professions around the globe, including dentistry. COVID-19, caused by the Corona virus family, is transmitted mainly by direct contact with an infected person or through the spread of aerosol and droplets. Dentistry by nature is considered to be one of the most vulnerable professions with regards to the high risk of transmission between the dentist, dental team, and patients; therefore, a protocol for infection control and the prevention and spreading of the COVID-19 virus in dental settings is urgently needed. This article reviews essential knowledge about this virus and its transmission and recommends preventive methods based on existing scientific research and recommendations to prevent the spread of this virus in dental offices and clinics.

COVID-19 in Dental Practice: Transmission Risk, Infection Control Challenge, and Clinical Implications

Objective:

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a worldwide, significant public health challenge. Dental care providers are at high risk due to the nature of their profession, which necessitates close proximity to the patient's oropharyngeal region and the use of droplet and aerosol-generating procedures.

Methods:

A review of the evolving literature on the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted. Published articles addressing SARS-CoV2 transmission modes and risks, and infection control procedures required in the dental office to protect dental patients and health care providers were assessed. Also, clinical guidelines on the management of dental patients during the pandemic were reviewed.

Results:

The established modes of transmission of SARS-CoV2 appear to be through respiratory droplets and through close contact with either symptomatic or asymptomatic patients. In addition to standard precautions of infection control widely followed in dental practices, extra precautionary measures are needed to control the spread of this highly infectious disease. Dental treatment during the pandemic is limited to emergent and urgent cases after a meticulous patient risk assessment and dental needs are triaged to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission and avoid cross-contamination.

Conclusion:

Dentists should be aware of the recently updated knowledge about COVID-19 modes of transmission and the recommended infection control measures in dental settings. Effective management protocols to regulate droplet and aerosol contamination in the dental clinic should be implemented to deliver dental care in a safe environment.