A study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinsing and high volume evacuator attachment alone and in combination in reducing the amount of viable aerosols produced during ultrasonic scaling procedure

Effect of an extraoral scavenging device on eliminating droplets and aerosols generated in ultrasonic supragingival scaling: A randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Ultrasonic scaling is extensively applied as part of the initial therapy for periodontal diseases, which has been restricted since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic due to droplets and aerosols generated by ultrasonic devices. An extraoral scavenging device (EOS) was designed for diminishing droplets and aerosols in dental clinics. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of EOS on eliminating droplets and aerosols during ultrasonic supragingival scaling.

METHODS

This single-blinded, randomised controlled clinical trial enrolled 45 patients with generalised periodontitis (stage I or II, grade A or B) or plaque-induced gingivitis. The patients were randomly allocated and received ultrasonic supragingival scaling under three different intervention measures: only saliva ejector (SE), SE plus EOS and SE plus high-volume evacuation (HVE). The natural sedimentation method was applied to sample droplets and aerosols before or during supragingival scaling. After aerobic culturing, colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted and analysed.

RESULTS

Compared with the level before treatment, more CFUs of samples throughout treatment could be obtained at the operator's chest and the patient's chest and the table surface when using SE alone (p < 0.05). Compared with the SE group, the SE + EOS group and the SE + HVE group obtained decreasing CFUs at the operator's chest and the patient's chest (p < 0.05), while no significant difference was determined between these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The EOS effectively eliminated splatter contamination from ultrasonic supragingival scaling, which was an alternative precaution for nosocomial contamination in dental clinics.

Efficacy of Oxygen-Enriched Mouthwash as a Pre-procedural Mouth Rinse Against Oral Microbes Produced During Ultrasonic Scaling

Aim Oxygen-enriched mouthwash products are based on oral topical oxygen therapy (OOT), which supports the formation of new blood vessels and the removal of toxins and waste products from the affected area and stimulates the synthesis of collagen. These antioxidant mouthwashes contain honey, lactoferrin, and sodium carbonate peroxide. Lactoferrin is an anti-inflammatory protein that binds the ferrous iron ions surrounding micro-organisms regulating bacterial growth. Hence, these products can be included as an adjunct to toothbrushing after oral surgeries and in the treatment of conditions like gingival inflammation and peri-implantitis. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of oxygen-enriched mouthwash as a pre-procedural mouth rinse against oral microbes in the aerosol produced during ultrasonic scaling. Materials and methods A total of 40 patients with an age range of 20-40 years who have been advised to undergo ultrasonic scaling were selected as study subjects and were randomly allocated to group 1 (test group; n = 20; blue®m mouthwash) and group 2 (control group; n = 20; chlorhexidine). After evaluating the initial bacterial load after the use of water (placebo) as pre-rinse on the patient's chest and shoulder areas in both experimental and control groups, both the group subjects were instructed to gargle with 10 ml of the provided mouth rinse for one minute before ultrasonic scaling procedure. Blood agar plates were placed at the patient's chest and shoulder area to collect the aerosol and were later incubated to assess the colony-forming units (CFUs). An independent t-test was done to compare the CFUs between the groups. Results The mean initial bacterial load after the use of water (placebo) as pre-rinse on the patients' chest area (122.4 ± 0.6) and shoulder area (109.3 ± 2.6) in the experimental group was similar to the bacterial load seen on the chest area (126.2 ± 4.8) and shoulder area (115.4 ± 3.8) in the control group. The CFUs found in blood agar plates placed on the chest (59.8 ± 2.5) and shoulder (35.3 ± 3.6) areas of patients in group 1 were less as compared to CFUs found in blood agar plates placed on the chest (104.8 ± 3.2) and shoulder (75.3 ± 2.8) areas of patients in group 2. The difference between both groups was statistically significant with a p-value of ≤0.05. Conclusion There is a reduction in the bacterial load in the aerosols that are emitted during the ultrasonic scaling procedure with the use of oxygen-enriched mouthwash as a pre-procedural rinse when compared with chlorhexidine.

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.

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.

Efficacy of Aerosol Reduction Measures for Dental Aerosol Generating Procedures

Aerosol particles generated by dental procedures could facilitate the transmission of infectious diseases and contain carcinogen particles. Such particles can penetrate common surgical masks and reach the lungs, leading to increased risk for dental care professionals. However, the risk of inhaling contaminated aerosol and the effectiveness of aerosol reduction measures in dental offices remain unclear. The present study aimed to quantify aerosols produced by drilling and scaling procedures and to evaluate present recommendations for aerosol reduction. The concentration of aerosol particles released from the mock scaling and drilling procedures on dental mannequin were measured using a TSI Optical Particle Sizer (OPS 3330) during 15-min sessions carried out in a single-patient examination room. Using a drilling procedure as the aerosol source, the aerosol reduction performance of two types of high-volume evacuators (HVEs) and a commercial off-the-shelf air purifier was evaluated in a simulated clinical setting. Using either HVEs or the air purifier individually reduced the aerosol accumulated over the course of a 15-minutes drilling procedure at a reduction rate of 94.8 to 97.6%. Using both measures simultaneously raised the reduction rate to 99.6%. The results show that existing HVEs can effectively reduce aerosol concentration generated by a drilling procedure and can be further improved by using an air purifier. Following current regulatory guidelines can ensure a low risk of inhaling contaminated aerosol for dentists, assistants, and patients.

Effectiveness of Pre-procedural Mouth Rinses in Reducing Aerosol Contamination During Periodontal Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review

Background: Aerosol-producing dental procedures are of concern in the spread of infections, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Periodontal prophylaxis is the most common aerosol-producing procedure conducted in dental practice globally. During COVID-19, many national and international organizations advocated the use of pre-procedural mouth rinsing to prevent the spread of infections from aerosol-generating procedures in the dental setting; however, many questioned the scientific basis for such recommendations. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pre-procedural rinsing when preforming periodontal prophylaxis in reducing aerosol contamination in the dental setting. Methods: A comprehensive standardized search strategy was employed, informed by a defined PICO question across four electronic databases. The review of the literature was conducted using the PRISMA framework. Agreement between assessors was determined throughout. Synthesis of study characteristics and key outcomes were conducted. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was employed to assess the quality/bias among studies. Results: The initial search yielded 731 citations across the four databases; 95 potentially effective studies were identified, with 56 effective studies found. Thirty randomized control trial studies were identified, 21 with a focus on effectiveness of pre-procedural mouth rinsing, involving 984 participants (aged 18-70). Agreement between assessors was high (Kappa >0.80). Various pre-procedural mouth rinses were tested, most frequently chlorhexidine (CHX) in 18 studies. The concentrations, volume, and prescribed duration of rinsing varied among studies, hampering meta-analyses. Nonetheless, all studies identified significant reductions in bacterial contamination, as measured by colony forming units (cfu). The effectiveness of CHX over other agents was evident with more than half of the studies (7/15) reporting over a 70% reduction in bacterial contamination (cfu). There were concerns over the risk of bias in most studies (76.2%); 19.0% had a high risk of bias and 4.8% were of low risk of bias. Conclusion: There is substantial evidence to support pre-procedural mouth rinsing, such as with chlorohexidine, to effectively reduce aerosol contamination when performing periodontal prophylaxis compared to mouth rinsing with water or not rinsing.

Nursing strategies for COVID-19 prevention and control in a selected dental clinic

Aim

To comprehensively introduce the prevention and control measures that we can take in dental clinics during the pandemic period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and provide some practical experience for the development of nursing and health policies applicable to COVID‐19.

Background

The outbreak of COVID‐19 has placed the global health system under threat, which seriously influences the normal operations of human society. Safe and effective nursing measures should be taken to ensure the normal operation of dental clinics.

Sources of evidence

We searched and referenced many references on the PubMed database. Through the combination of related literatures and our experience, we describe various strategies, including personnel management, personal protection, disinfection and isolation, adopted in the dental clinic of our Chinese hospital during the pandemic of COVID‐19.

Discussion/Conclusions

We introduced strategies for the nursing staff in dental clinics to assist them with the prevention and control of COVID‐19. The successful implementation of the protective measures could ensure the safety of medical staff and patients, and contributed to the normal operation of dental clinics during the pandemic period.

Conclusions for nursing and health policy

During the pandemic, frontline nurses are under physical and mental pressure facing the threat of infection while at work. In addition to pandemic prevention, we should also pay attention to the needs of nursing staff. More reasonable and effective nursing and health policies should be formulated to ensure their safety and protect their rights and interests. This is the only way that the prevention and control of COVID‐19 can be achieved, and we can prepare for future public health events.

A clinical investigation of dental evacuation systems in reducing aerosols

Background

The route of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has challenged dentistry to improve the safety for patients and the dental team during various treatment procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of dental evacuation systems in reducing aerosols during oral prophylactic procedures in a large clinical setting.

Methods

This was a single-center, controlled clinical trial using a split-mouth design. A total of 93 student participants were recruited according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Aerosol samples were collected on blood agar plates that were placed around the clinic at 4 treatment periods: baseline, high-volume evacuation (HVE), combination (HVE and intraoral suction device), and posttreatment. Student operators were randomized to perform oral prophylaxis using ultrasonic scalers on 1 side of the mouth, using only HVE suction for the HVE treatment period and then with the addition of an intraoral suction device for the combination treatment period. Agar plates were collected after each period and incubated at 37 °C for 48 hours. Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were determined using an automatic colony counter.

Results

The use of a combination of devices resulted in significant reductions in CFUs compared with the use of the intraoral suction device alone (P < .001). The highest amounts of CFUs were found in the operating zone and on patients during both HVE and combination treatment periods.

Conclusions

Within limitations of this study, the authors found significant reductions in the amount of microbial aerosols when both HVE and an intraoral suction device were used.

Practical Implications

The combination of HVE and intraoral suction devices significantly decreases microbial aerosols during oral prophylaxis procedures.

Infection control in dental health care during and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak

COVID-19 is an emerging infectious disease caused by the widespread transmission of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Some of those infected become seriously ill. Others do not show any symptoms, but can still contribute to transmission of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is excreted in the oral cavity and can be spread via aerosols. Aerosol generating procedures in dental health care can increase the risk of transmission of the virus. Due to the risk of infection of both dental healthcare workers and patients, additional infection control measures for all patients are strongly recommended when providing dental health care. Consideration should be given to which infection control measures are necessary when providing care in both the current situation and in the future.

Dental periodontal procedures: a systematic review of contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in relation to COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the delivery of routine dentistry; and in particular, periodontal care across the world. This systematic review examines the literature relating to splatter, droplet settle and aerosol for periodontal procedures and forms part of a wider body of research to understand the risk of contamination in relation to periodontal care procedures relevant to COVID-19.

METHODS

A search of the literature was carried out using key terms and MeSH words relating to the review questions. Sources included Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS, ClinicalTrials.Gov . Studies meeting inclusion criteria were screened in duplicate and data extraction was carried out using a template. All studies were assessed for methodological quality and sensitivity. Narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the review with procedures including ultrasonic scaling (n = 44), air polishing (n = 4), prophylaxis (n = 2) and hand scaling (n = 3). Outcomes included bacterial (colony-forming units e.g. on settle plates) or blood contamination (e.g. visible splatter) and non bacterial, non blood (e.g. chemiluminescence or coloured dyes) contamination. All studies found contamination at all sites although the contamination associated with hand scaling was very low. Contamination was identified in all of the studies even where suction was used at baseline. Higher power settings created greater contamination. Distribution of contamination varied in relation to operator position and was found on the operator, patient and assistant with higher levels around the head of the operator and the mouth and chest of the patient. Settle was identified 30 min after treatments had finished but returned to background levels when measured at or after an hour. The evidence was generally low to medium quality and likely to underestimate contamination.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonic scaling, air polishing and prophylaxis procedures produce contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in the presence of suction, with a small amount of evidence showing droplets taking between 30 min and 1 h to settle. Consideration should be given to infection control, areas of cleaning particularly around the patient and appropriate personal protective equipment, with particular attention to respiratory, facial and body protection for these procedures. In addition, the use of lower power settings should be considered to reduce the amount and spread of contamination.

Aerosol generation and control in the dental operatory: An in vitro spectrometric study of typical clinical setups

Dental turbines and scalers, used every day in dental operatories, feature built-in water spray that generates considerable amounts of water aerosol. The problem is that it is not exactly known how much. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, several aerosol safety recommendations have been issued-based on little empirical evidence, as almost no data are available on the exact aerosol concentrations generated during dental treatment. Similarly, little is known about the differences in the efficacy of different commercially available aerosol control systems to reduce in-treatment aerosol load. In this in vitro study, we used spectrometry to explore these questions. The time-dependent effect of conventional airing on aerosol concentrations was also studied. Everyday patient treatment situations were modeled. The test setups were defined by the applied instrument and its spray direction (high-speed turbine with direct/indirect airspray or ultrasonic scaler with indirect airspray) and the applied aerosol control system (the conventional high-volume evacuator or a lately introduced aerosol exhaustor). Two parameters were analyzed: total number concentration in the entire measurement range of the spectrometer and total number concentration within the 60 to 384 nm range. The results suggest that instrument type and spray direction significantly influence the resulting aerosol concentrations. Aerosol generation by the ultrasonic scaler is easily controlled. As for the high-speed turbine, the efficiency of control might depend on how exactly the instrument is used during a treatment. The results suggest that scenarios where the airspray is frequently directed toward the air of the operatory are the most difficult to control. The tested control systems did not differ in their efficiency, but the study could not provide conclusive results in this respect. With conventional airing through windows with a standard fan, a safety airing period of at least 15 minutes between treatments is recommended.

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.

Aerosols generation using Er,Cr:YSGG laser compared to rotary instruments in conservative dentistry: A preliminary study

Background

In restorative dentistry, the use of high-speed air turbine, which generates aerosols, can be associated with the transmission of airborne diseases. New laser technologies could be useful in reducing the amount of aerosols, but there is a lack of scientific research on this topic.

Material and Methods

This is a descriptive study to analyze the amount of aerosols produced after class I cavity preparation using high-speed air turbine (group 1) and Er,Cr:YSGG laser with two different parameters (groups 2 and 3). Fluorescein dye was incorporated into the coolant reservoir in order to visualize the production of aerosols during each procedure. Tooth preparation was performed in a typodont with human lower molar tooth under rubber dam isolation. The procedure was carried out in a transparent plastic box to avoid aerosols dispersion. Sixteen grade I cellulose filter discs were distributed along the surfaces of the box. The area contaminated with aerosols in the filters was measured using ultraviolet illumination.

Results

In group 1, the contaminated surface area covered with fluorescein dye reached 77.3% (1349 cm2) of the total; in group 2 (laser with 80% water) we observed 7.3% (128 cm2) and in group 3 (laser with 40% water) it was 3.8% (68 cm2). The reduction in water parameter from 80% to 40% coincided with 48% reduction of the contaminated area on the filter discs. Focusing on the surfaces of the box, we noted that the mean contamination on the left side was more than on the right side in all three experimental groups. In group 1 using air turbine, we measured a mean of 102.6[±7.5 SD]cm2 on the left side, compared to 70.6[±32.3 SD]cm2 on the right side. In laser groups 2 and 3, a mean of 12.8[±14.9 SD]cm2 and 6.8 [±5.7SD]cm2, respectively, was described on the left surface versus 0 cm2 of surface contamination on the right surface.

Conclusions

The contaminated area during the procedure of class I cavity preparation, is reduced by 70% using Er,Cr:YSGG laser compared to high-speed turbine. A slightly higher contamination was observed between laser groups with 80% versus 40% water. The use of Er,Cr:YSGG laser in restorative dentistry can be a valid treatment alternative to reduce aerosols production compared to conventional high-speed rotary instruments. Key words:Er,Cr:YSGG laser, Aerosols, SARS-CoV-2, Rotary instruments, conservative dentistry.

Quantitative measurements of aerosols from air-polishing and ultrasonic devices: (How) can we protect ourselves?

AIM

To assess the distribution and deposition of aerosols during simulated periodontal therapy.

METHODS

A manikin with simulated fluorescein salivation was treated by four experienced dentists applying two different periodontal treatment options, i.e. air-polishing with an airflow device or ultrasonic scaling in the upper and lower anterior front for 5 minutes, respectively. Aerosol deposition was quantitatively measured on 21 pre-defined locations with varying distances to the manikins mouth in triplicates using absorbent filter papers.

RESULTS

The selected periodontal interventions resulted in different contamination levels around the patient's mouth. The highest contamination could be measured on probes on the patient's chest and forehead but also on the practitioner's glove. With increasing distance to the working site contamination of the probes decreased with both devices. Air-polishing led to greater contamination than ultrasonic.

CONCLUSION

Both devices showed contamination of the nearby structures, less contamination was detected when using the ultrasonic. Affirming the value of wearing protective equipment we support the need for universal barrier precautions and effective routine infection control in dental practice.

Bio-Inspired Systems in Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy to Reduce Contaminated Aerosol during COVID-19: A Comprehensive and Bibliometric Review

Background: On 30 January 2020, a public health emergency of international concern was declared as a result of the new COVID-19 disease, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This virus is transmitted by air and, therefore, clinical practices with the production of contaminant aerosols are highly at risk. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of bio-inspired systems, as adjuvants to nonsurgical periodontal therapy, in order to formulate bio-inspired protocols aimed at restoring optimal condition, reducing bacteremia and aerosols generation. Methods: A comprehensive and bibliometric review of articles published in English. Research of clinical trials (RCTs) were included with participants with chronic or aggressive periodontal disease, that have compared benefits for nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT). Results: Seventy-four articles have been included. For probing depth (PPD) there was a statically significant improvement in laser, probiotic, chlorhexidine groups, such as gain in clinical attachment level (CAL). Bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction was statistically significant only for probiotic and chlorhexidine groups. There were changes in microbiological and immunological parameters. Conclusions: The use of bio-inspired systems in nonsurgical periodontal treatment may be useful in reducing risk of bacteremia and aerosol generation, improving clinical, microbiological and immunological parameters, of fundamental importance in a context of global pandemic, where the reduction of bacterial load in aerosols becomes a pivotal point of clinical practice, but other clinical trials are necessary to achieve statistical validity.

COVID-19: What do we know?

•Evidence regarding the provision of orthodontic care during the COVID-19 pandemic is examined.

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.

COVID-19-Orthodontic Care During and After the Pandemic: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

To provide comprehensive information regarding the implications of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), mode of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), and its effects on orthodontic care during the pandemic and post-pandemic outbreak of the disease, based on currently available literature and information.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive research for studies that focused on the COVID-19 pandemic and orthodontic care up to August 18, 2020, with no language restriction. The databases included PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) 2020. The research was focused on presenting symptoms, disease transmission, infection control, orthodontic care, and financial implications affecting the delivery of orthodontic treatment. The research also included reports from major health policy regulatory bodies such as World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, and major international dental and orthodontic societies and associations. The peer-reviewed publications and guidelines from the health regulatory authorities were given priority.

RESULTS

The latest information on the SARS-CoV-2 virus effects and orthodontic implications were arranged sequentially. The SARS-CoV-2 virus mode of transmission and its prevention were emphasized to keep the orthodontic and dental operatory safe for continuing practice.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 outbreak has changed the way orthodontics is practiced. Strict infection control, near-zero aerosol production, and minimal touch dentistry are the keys to prevent contamination of orthodontic operatory. During the pandemic, only emergency orthodontic procedures could be extended to the orthodontic patient while adhering to all the regulatory guidelines. Fortunately, to date, there is no reported case of cross-transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the dental setup.

AAID White Paper: Management of the Dental Implant Patient During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

The scientific community's understanding of how the SARS-CoV-2 virus is transmitted and how to best mitigate its spread is improving daily. To help protect patients from acquiring COVID-19 from a dental office nosocomial infection, many state or local governments have classified dental treatments as "nonessential" and have paused routine dental care. Dentists have been instructed to perform only procedures designated as emergencies. Unfortunately, there is not a good understanding of what a dental emergency is among governmental leaders. What a government agency may perceive as an elective procedure may be seen as "essential" by the dental clinician responsible for maintaining the oral health of the patient. Each dental specialty understands the effects delayed care has on a patient's oral and systemic health. Dentistry has made extensive progress in improving oral health through prevention of the dental emergency. The dental profession must work together to prevent the reversal of the progress dentistry and patients have made. This American Academy of Implant Dentistry (AAID) White Paper discusses what COVID-19 is and how it impacts dental treatments, presents guidelines for dentistry in general and for dental implant related treatments, specifically. Recommendations for implant dentistry include the following: (1) what constitutes a dental implant related emergency, (2) how patients should be screened and triaged, (3) what personal protective equipment is necessary, (4) how operatories should be equipped, (5) what equipment should be used, and (6) what, when, and how procedures can be performed. This paper is intended to provide guidance for the dental implant practice so patients and dental health care providers can be safe, and offices can remain open and viable during the pandemic.

Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify and rank the effectiveness of different interventions used in dental practice to reduce microbial load in aerosolized compounds. Seven electronic databases were searched to April 6, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized prospective studies in the field. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed for all included studies, while the outcome of interest pertained to differences in bacterial load quantification through the use of different interventions prior to aerosol-generating procedures in dental practices. Random effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed, with mean difference (MD) and 95% CI as the effect measure. Confidence in the documented evidence was assessed through the newly fueled CINeMA framework (Confidence in Network Meta-analysis) based on the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Twenty-nine clinical trials were deemed eligible, 21 RCTs and 8 nonrandomized studies, while 11 RCTs contributed to the network meta-analysis, comprising 10 competing interventions. Tempered chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% as compared with nonactive control mouth rinse, prior to routine ultrasonic scaling, was most effective toward reduced postprocedural bacterial load with an MD of -0.92 (95% CI, -1.54 to -0.29) in log₁₀ bacterial CFUs (colony-forming units). For CHX 0.2%, an MD of -0.74 (95% CI, -1.07 to -0.40) was observed as compared with control. Tempered CHX 0.2% presented the highest probabilities of being ranked the most effective treatment (31.2%). Level of confidence varied from very low to moderate across all formulated comparisons. These findings summarize the current state of research evidence in the field of aerosolized bacteria in dentistry. Instigated by the era of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the stipulation of a broader evaluation of the aerosolized microbes, including viruses, potentially coupled with disinfectant-based prevention schemes should be prioritized.

Aerosol-generating procedures in head and neck surgery - can we improve practice after COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on international medicine practice. The propensity for head and neck surgery to generate aerosols needs special consideration over and above simply adopting personal protective equipment. This study sought to interrogate the literature and evaluate whether which additional measures might provide benefit if routinely adopted in minimising viral transmission.

Efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of microorganisms in aerosol: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The authors of this systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in reducing the number of microorganisms disseminated by means of the aerosol generated via dental procedures when compared with a placebo, water, or no mouthrinse.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included only randomized clinical trials. They searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Google Scholar, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases through May 31, 2019. They performed random-effects meta-analysis for reduction of the number of colony-forming units (CFU) in the dental aerosol.

RESULTS

Of 770 potentially relevant articles, the authors included 13 randomized clinical trials in which researchers studied the efficacy of chlorhexidine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and herbal products. Meta-analysis of 12 studies showed that mouthrinses with chlorhexidine, essential oils, and cetylpyridinium chloride significantly reduced the number of CFU. Overall, the use of a preprocedural mouthrinse resulted in a mean reduction in the number of CFUs of 64.8% (95% confidence interval, 50.4% to 79.3%; I² = 37%) compared with control. None of the included studies presented a low risk of bias.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Some dental procedures result in dissemination of microorganisms in the aerosol in the dental office. There is moderate evidence that preprocedural mouthrinses significantly reduce the number of microorganisms in the dental aerosol.