Aerosols how dangerous they are in clinical practice

Study of aerosol dispersion and control in dental practice

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we investigated the dispersion patterns of aerosols and droplets in dental clinics and developed a suction device to evaluate its effectiveness in reducing aerosols during dental procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Firstly, the continuous images of oral aerosols and droplets were photographed with a high-speed camera, and the trajectories of these particles were recognized and processed by Image J to determine key parameters affecting particle dispersion: diffusion velocity, distance, and angle. Secondly, based on the parameter data, the flow field of aerosol particles around the oral cavity was simulated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and the flow field under adsorption conditions was simulated to demonstrate the aerodynamic characteristics and capture efficiencies of the single-channel and three-channel adsorption ports at different pressures. Finally, according to the simulated data, a three-channel suction device was developed, and the capture efficiency of the device was tested by the fluorescein tracer method.

RESULTS

The dispersion experimental data showed that aerosol particles' maximum diffusion velocity, distance, and angle were 6.2 m/s, 0.55 m, and 130°, respectively. The simulated aerosol flow-field distribution was consistent with the aerosol dispersion patterns. The adsorption simulation results showed that the outlet flow rate of single-channel adsorption was 184.5 L/s at - 350 Pa, and the aerosol capture efficiency could reach 79.4%. At - 350 Pa and - 150 Pa, the outlet flow rate of three-channel adsorption was 228.9 L/s, and the capture efficiency was 99.23%. The adsorption experimental data showed that the capture efficiency of three-channel suction device was 97.71%.

CONCLUSIONS

A three-channel suction device was designed by simulations and experiments, which can capture most aerosols in the dental clinic and prevent them from spreading.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Using three-channel suction devices during oral treatment effectively reduces the spread of oral aerosols, which is essential to prevent the spread of epidemics and ensure the health and safety of patients and dental staff.

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.

Blood and saliva contamination on protective eyewear during dental treatment

Objectives

Dental treatments are inherently associated with the appearance of potentially infective aerosols, blood and saliva splashes. The aim of the present study was to investigate the quantitative contamination of protective eyewear during different dental treatments and the efficacy of the subsequent disinfection.

Materials and methods

Fifty-three standardized protective eyewear shields worn by students, dentists and dental assistants during different aerosol-producing dental treatment modalities (supragingival cleaning, subgingival periodontal instrumentation, trepanation and root canal treatment and carious cavity preparation; within all treatments, dental evacuation systems were used) were analysed, using common forensic techniques. For detection of blood contamination, luminol solution was applied onto the surface of safety shields. A special forensic test paper was used to visualize saliva contamination. Further analysis was conducted after standardized disinfection using the same techniques. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.

Results

Macroscopically detectable contamination was found on 60.4% of protective eyewear surfaces. A contamination with blood (median 330 pixels, equivalent to 0.3% of the total surface) was detected on all shields after dental treatment. Between various dental treatments, the contamination with blood tend to be statistically significant (p = 0.054). Highest amount of blood was observed after professional tooth cleaning (median 1,087 pixels). Significant differences of saliva contamination were detected between the different measurements (p < 0.001) with contamination only after dental treatment. Due to the low variance and right-skewed distribution for saliva contamination, no statistical analysis between different treatments could be performed. After disinfection, 0.02% blood contamination and no saliva contamination were detected.

Conclusions

Disinfection is effective against blood and saliva contamination. Macroscopically, clean protective eyewear contains up to 12% surface contamination with blood. Based on the results, it may be concluded that protective eyewear is essential for each dental practitioner.

Clinical relevance

As standard for infection prevention in the dental practice, disinfection of protective eyewear after each patient is necessary.

Bacterial contamination of forehead skin and surgical mask in aerosol-producing dental treatment

Background

Bacterial contamination of dental professionals’ facial skin and protective equipment from treatment-related aerosols and droplets are poorly studied.

Methods

This prospective study analyzed samples from 67 consecutive aerosol-producing dental treatments. Sterile nylon swabs served to collect samples from dental professionals’ foreheads before and after exposure. Contact samples were obtained from used surgical masks. Samples were incubated on agar under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Bacteria were classified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. We determined the frequencies of obligate and facultative oral bacteria and scored bacterial growth (0: none; 1: < 100 colonies; 2: >100 colonies; 3: dense).

Results

Bacteria were detected in 95% of skin-swab and 76% of mask samples. Median bacterial scores were 2 for forehead samples before and after treatment, and 1 for masks. Obligate and facultative oral bacteria were more frequent (6% and 30%) in samples from exposed forehead skin, which also showed increased bacterial scores (28%). 5% of samples contained methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus; 3% contained obligate anaerobes.

Conclusion

Exposed forehead skin was significantly less contaminated with obligate oral bacteria than expected based on surgical mask findings. Exposed forehead skin showed increased contamination attributable to aerosol-producing procedures. The forehead’s physiological skin microbiota may offer some protection against bacterial contamination.

In vivo evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2. A randomized-controlled clinical trial

Objectives

The oral cavity is potentially high-risk transmitter of COVID-19. Antimicrobial mouthrinses are used in many clinical preprocedural situations for decreasing the risk of cross-contamination in the dental setting. It is important to investigate the efficacy of mouthwash solutions against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in order to reduce the exposure of the dental team during dental procedures.

Aims

The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load and to compare the results of the mouthwashes to a control group.

Materials and Methods

In this randomized-controlled clinical trial, studied group comprised laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 positive patients through nasopharyngeal swabs. Participants were divided into 3 groups. For 30 s, the control group mouthrinsed with distilled water, the Chlorhexidine group mouthrinsed with 0.2% Chlorhexidine and the Povidone-iodine group gargled with 1% Povidone-iodine. Saliva samples were collected before and 5 min after mouthwash. SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was then performed for each sample. Evaluation of the efficacy was based on difference in cycle threshold (Ct) value. The analysis of data was carried out using GraphPad Prism version 5 for Windows. Kristal wullis and Paired t-test were used. A probability value of less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Sixty-one compliant participants (36 female and 25 male) with a mean age 45.3 ± 16.7 years-old were enrolled. A significant difference was noted between the delta Ct of distilled water wash and each of the 2 solutions Chlorhexidine 0.2% (P = .0024) and 1% Povidone-iodine (P = .012). No significant difference was found between the delta Ct of patients using Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine solutions (P = .24). A significant mean Ct value difference (P < .0001) between the paired samples in Chlorhexidine group (n = 27) and also in Povidone-iodine group (n = 25) (P < .0001) was found. In contrast, no significant difference (P = .566) existed before and after the experiment in the control group (n = 9).

Conclusion

Chlorhexidine 0.2% and 1% Povidone-iodine oral solutions are effective preprocedural mouthwashes against salivary SARS-CoV-2 in dental treatments. Their use as a preventive strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 during dental practice should be considered.

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.

Dental education in the time of SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has forced profound change on all aspects of society, with significant impact on dental education. Dental students like all other dental clinical personnel are considered to be at the highest risk amongst healthcare workers due to the nature of treatment, namely, working in the oral cavity (known reservoir for the virus) and the routine use of aerosol-generating procedures. The nature of this pandemic has created several challenges to dental clinical education. The aim of this paper is to discuss these challenges and how educators have sought to overcome them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This paper reviews the evidence base around bio-aerosol and infection control measures specifically in the context of dental education.

RESULTS

Using current knowledge of bio-aerosol and increasing understanding of the virus, dental educators can implement evidence-based measures to ensure safe teaching within both simulation and clinical environments.

DISCUSSION

This paper contextualises the current pandemic in a dental education setting by providing a critical appraisal of the challenges posed by SARS-CoV-2 and how these challenges may be managed.

CONCLUSION

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has created unique challenges for dental schools worldwide. Dental educators have sought to identify these challenges and find solutions appropriate to the stage of the pandemic specific to their geographical location.

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.

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of microbial aerosols in different indoor environments of a dental school clinic

In the indoor environment of dental clinics, dental staff and patients are exposed to various types of infectious agents transported by aerosols and particles, generated during dental procedures, promoting an increased risk of cross-infection. The aim of this study was to determine the levels and diversity of microbial aerosol in relation to particle load in five different departments of a dental school clinic. The air samples were collected by an active single-stage Andersen sampler during the treatment procedure. The mean concentrations of airborne bacteria were in the range of 52-1030 and 8-844 CFU/m³ at the distances of 0.5 and 2 m, respectively. Bacterial aerosols in pediatric, endodontics, and restorative wards and fungal aerosols in all the sampling wards were significantly higher at the distances of 0.5 m. The dominant bacteria and fungi were identified as Micrococcus, Bacillus, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Penicillium, Cladosporium, Aspergillus, Rhizopus, and Alternaria. The positive associations were also obtained between bacteria and fungi levels and particulate matter (PM) concentrations.

Indoor Air Pollution with Fine Particles and Implications for Workers’ Health in Dental Offices: A Brief Review

(1) Background: Indoor air pollution can affect the well-being and health of humans. Sources of indoor pollution with particulate matter (PM) are outdoor particles and indoor causes, such as construction materials, the use of cleaning products, air fresheners, heating, cooking, and smoking activities. In 2017, according to the Global Burden of Disease study, 1.6 million people died prematurely because of indoor air pollution. The health effects of outdoor exposure to PM have been the subject of both research and regulatory action, and indoor exposure to fine particles is gaining more and more attention as a potential source of adverse health effects. Moreover, in critical situations such as the current pandemic crisis, to protect the health of the population, patients, and staff in all areas of society (particularly in indoor environments, where there are vulnerable groups, such as people who have pre-existing lung conditions, patients, elderly people, and healthcare professionals such as dental practitioners), there is an urgent need to improve long- and short-term health. Exposure to aerosols and splatter contaminated with bacteria, viruses, and blood produced during dental procedures performed on patients rarely leads to the transmission of infectious agents between patients and dental health care staff if infection prevention procedures are strictly followed. On the other hand, in the current circumstances of the pandemic crisis, dental practitioners could have an occupational risk of acquiring coronavirus disease as they may treat asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients. Consequently, an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection could occur in dental offices, both for staff that provide dental healthcare and for other patients, considering that many dental procedures produce droplets and dental aerosols, which carry an infectious virus such as SARS-CoV-2. (2) Types of studies reviewed and applied methodology: The current work provides a critical review and evaluation, as well as perspectives concerning previous studies on health risks of indoor exposure to PM in dental offices. The authors reviewed representative dental medicine literature focused on sources of indoor PM10 and PM2.5 (particles for which the aerodynamic diameter size is respectively less than 10 and 2.5 μm) in indoor spaces (paying specific attention to dental offices) and their characteristics and toxicological effects in indoor microenvironments. The authors also reviewed representative studies on relations between the indoor air quality and harmful effects, as well as studies on possible indoor viral infections acquired through airborne and droplet transmission. The method employed for the research illustrated in the current paper involved a desk study of documents and records relating to occupational health problems among dental health care providers. In this way, it obtained background information on both the main potential hazards in dentistry and infection risks from aerosol transmission within dental offices. Reviewing this kind of information, especially that relating to bioaerosols, is critical for minimizing the risk to dental staff and patients, particularly when new recommendations for COVID-19 risk reduction for the dental health professional community and patients attending dental clinics are strongly needed. (3) Results: The investigated studies and reports obtained from the medical literature showed that, even if there are a wide number of studies on indoor human exposure to fine particles and health effects, more deep research and specific studies on indoor air pollution with fine particles and implications for workers’ health in dental offices are needed. As dental practices are at a higher risk for hazardous indoor air because of exposure to chemicals and microbes, the occupational exposures and diseases must be addressed, with special attention being paid to the dental staff. The literature also documents that exposure to fine particles in dental offices can be minimized by putting prevention into practice (personal protection barriers such as masks, gloves, and safety eyeglasses) and also keeping indoor air clean (e.g., high-volume evacuation, the use of an air-room-cleaning system with high-efficiency particulate filters, and regularly maintaining the air-conditioning and ventilation systems). These kinds of considerations are extremely important as the impact of indoor pollution on human health is no longer an individual issue, with its connections representing a future part of sustainability which is currently being redefined. These kinds of considerations are extremely important, and the authors believe that a better situation in dentistry needs to be developed, with researchers in materials and dental health trying to understand and explain the impact of indoor pollution on human health.

SARS-CoV-2: characterisation and mitigation of risks associated with aerosol generating procedures in dental practices

Introduction The objectives were to characterise the particle size distribution of aerosols generated by standard dental aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) and to assess the impact of aerosol-management interventions on 'fallow time'. Interventions included combinations of high-volume intraoral suction (HVS[IO]), high-volume extraoral suction (HVS[EO]) and an air cleaning system (ACS).Method A sequence of six AGPs were performed on a phantom head. Real-time aerosol measurements (particle size range 0.0062-9.6 μm) were acquired from six locations within a typical dental treatment room (35 m3).Results The majority (>99%) of AGP particles were <0.3 μm diameter and remained at elevated levels around the dental team during the AGPs. With no active aerosol-management interventions, AGP particles were estimated to remain above the baseline range for up to 30 minutes from the end of the sequence of procedures.Conclusions The results emphasise the importance of personal protection equipment, particularly respiratory protection. Use of HVS(IO), either alone or in combination with the ACS, reduced particle concentrations to baseline levels on completion of AGPs. These data indicate potential to eliminate fallow time. The study was performed using a phantom head so confirmatory studies with patients are required.

A clinical study measuring dental aerosols with and without a high-volume extraction device

Introduction External high-volume extraction (HVE) devices may offer a way to reduce any aerosol particulate generated.Aims The aim of this study was to measure the particle count during dental aerosol generating procedures and compare the results with when a HVE device is used.Design A comparative clinical study measuring the amount of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 aerosol particulate with and without the use of an external HVE device was undertaken.Materials and methods In total, ten restorative procedures were monitored with an industrial Trotec PC220 particle counter. The intervention was an external HVE device.Main outcome methods The air sampler was placed at the average working distance of the clinicians involved in the study - 420 mm.Results In the present study, aerosol particulate was recorded at statistically significantly increased levels during dental procedures without an external HVE deviceversus with the device.Discussion The null hypothesis was rejected, in that significant differences were found between the results of the amount of aerosol particle count with and without a HVE device.Conclusion If the results of the present study are repeated in an in vivo setting, an external high-volume suction device may potentially show a lower risk of transmission of viral particulate.

Contamination of surgical mask during aerosol-producing dental treatments

Objectives

Surgical masks are usually contaminated during dental treatment. So far it has not been investigated whether a surgical mask itself can be a source of microbial transmission. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate the microbiological contamination of surgical masks during dental treatment and the transfer of microorganisms from the mask to the hands.

Materials and methods

Five dental treatment modalities were studied: carious cavity preparation (P-caries, n = 10), tooth substance preparation (P-tooth, n = 10), trepanation and root canal treatment (P-endo, n = 10), supragingival ultrasonic application (US-supra, n = 10), and subgingival periodontal ultrasonic instrumentation (US-sub, n = 10). Bacterial contamination of mask and gloves worn during treatment was tested by imprinting on agar plates. Additionally, before masks were tested, their outer surface was touched with a new sterile glove. This glove was also imprinted on agar. Bacteria were identified by MALDI TOF mass spectrometry. Colony-forming units (CFU) were scored: score 0: 0 CFU, score 1: < 10² CFU, score 2: > 10² CFU, score 3: dense microbial growth.

Results

All masks and all gloves used during treatment displayed bacterial contamination (sample scores 0/1/2/3: masks 0/46/3/1 and gloves 0/31/10/9). After touching the masks with new sterile gloves, microorganisms were recovered with the following contamination scores: P-caries: 4/6/0/0, P-tooth: 2/8/0/0: P-endo: 7/3/0/0, US-supra: 0/9/1/0, US-sub: 2/8/0/0. No statistically significant differences were detected between the treatment modalities. Streptococci spp. and Staphylococci spp. representing the oral and cutaneous flora dominated.

Conclusions

Surgical masks are contaminated after aerosol-producing dental treatment procedures. Used masks have a potential to be a source of bacterial contamination of the hands.

Clinical relevance

Dental staff should avoid touching the outer surface of masks with their hands to prevent transmission of pathogens. It is recommendable to change the mask after each treated patient followed by hand disinfection.

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.

The efficacy of an extraoral scavenging device on reduction of splatter contamination during dental aerosol generating procedures: an exploratory study

Introduction This study was conducted in light of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which brought UK dentistry to a standstill. The market has seen a recent influx of unproven extraoral scavengers (EOSs), which claim to reduce the risk of particulate spread.Aims To investigate the efficacy of a commercially available EOS device on contamination reduction during dental aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). The secondary aim was to investigate differences between open and closed dental operatories.Method Dental procedures were simulated on a dental manikin using citric acid (10%) added to the water lines with universal indicating paper (UIP) placed in strategic locations in the operatory, on the clinician and assistant. Chromatic change related to settling of splatter containing citric acid on the UIP was analysed to calculate percentage intensity of splatter contamination.Results EOSs resulted in 20% reduction in frequency and 75% reduction in mean intensity of contamination of operatory sites. There was a 33% and 76% reduction in mean intensity contamination for clinician and assistant, respectively. Use of rubber dam and four-handed dentistry resulted in further reduction.Discussion This exploratory study demonstrates contamination by splatter in a simulated dental setting. The concern in dentistry regarding aerosol requires further quantitative investigation of smaller particles.Conclusions The routine use of four-handed dentistry and rubber dam should continue where possible to maximise risk mitigation during AGPs. However, on the basis of our findings, the use of an EOS device can further mitigate the magnitude and concentration of splatter.

Modifications of emergency dental clinic protocols to combat COVID-19 transmission

During the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence rates for dental diseases will continue unabated. However, the intent to prevent the spread of this lethal respiratory disease will likely lead to reduced treatment access due to restrictions on population movements. These changes have the potential to increase dental-related emergency department visits and subsequently contribute to greater viral transmission. Moreover, dentists experience unique challenges with preventing transmission due to frequent aerosol-producing procedures. This paper presents reviews and protocols implemented by directors and residents at the Dental College of Georgia to manage a dental emergency clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic. The methods presented include committee-based prioritization of dental patients, a multilayered screening process, team rotations with social and temporal spacing, and modified treatment room protocols. These efforts aid in the reduction of viral transmission, conservation of personal protective equipment, and expand provider availability. These protocols transcend a university and hospital-based models and are applicable to private and corporate models.

Effect of aloe vera as a preprocedural rinse in reducing aerosol contamination during ultrasonic scaling

Background:

The use of preprocedural mouth rinse is one of the recommended ways to reduce aerosol contamination during ultrasonic scaling. Different agents have been tried as preprocedural mouth rinse. Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine significantly reduce the viable microbial content of aerosol when used as a preprocedural rinse. Studies have shown that aloe vera (AV) mouthwash is equally effective as chlorhexidine in reducing plaque and gingivitis. There is no published literature on the role of AV as a preprocedural mouth rinse. Hence, this study compared the effect of 94.5% AV to 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and 1% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) as preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing the aerosol contamination by ultrasonic scaling.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty subjects were divided into three groups based on the preprocedural rinse use (0.2% CHX, 1% PVP-I, and 94.5% AV). Ultrasonic scaling was done for 20 min in the same closed operatory for all the subjects after keeping blood agar plates open at two standardized locations. Colony forming units (CFUs) on blood agar plates were counted, and predominant bacteria were identified after incubation at 37°C for 48 h.

Results:

There was statistically significant difference in the CFU counts between CHX group and PVP-I group and between AV group and PVP-I group. There was no difference between CHX group and AV group at both the locations.

Conclusion:

94.5% AV as a preprocedural rinse is better than 1% PVP-I and comparable to 0.2% CHX in reducing CFU count.