A Systematic Review of Droplet and Aerosol Generation in Dentistry

Background

SARS-CoV-2 is the highly infectious virus which causes COVID-19 [1]. Transmission has been thought to be primarily via respiratory droplets, direct contact and fomites. Virus particles can be detected up to 72 hours after inoculation of plastic and steel surfaces [1-3]. However, SARS-CoV-2 has been found to remain viable in air for at least three hours with growing evidence and concern over possible airborne transmission [2, 4].

Dental care involves close patient contact for prolonged periods leading to concern over transmission through aerosol generation during dental procedures [5, 6], compounded by consistent detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva [7]. In dentistry, universal precautions have been standard practice, based on evidence-informed infection control. These evolve as evidence emerges, particularly in response to blood and water borne infections and prion transmission [8-10].

The term Aerosol Generating Procedure (AGP) has been described as, “any procedure on a patient that can induce the production of aerosols of various sizes” although there is currently no agreed definition and a confusing lack of consistency in terminology. The UK National Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group has described “dental procedures (using highspeed devices such as Ultrasonic scalers and highspeed drills)” [11] as posing an increased risk of respiratory infection transmission. New terms such as aerosol generating exposure (AGE) have been suggested [12]. Policy documents have focused on ultrasonic scalers (USS), high-speed air-rotors (HSAR), air-water syringes (also known as triple or 3-in-1), and air polishers as sources of aerosols, with rubber dam and high-volume suction as mitigating measures [13-15].

To manage transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2, the extent and contamination of droplets and aerosols involved in dental procedures need to be identified. Similarly, the pattern, and timing, associated with spread and settle of droplets and aerosols in the context of clinical dentistry need to be understood to inform policy on surgery fallow times between patients. Globally specified patient spacing times for AGPs vary from none to 120 minutes [16].

An aerosol is defined as a suspension of liquid or solid in air [17, 18]. When an aerosol is created with a liquid, a wide range of droplet sizes are produced. Particle size is a continuum, from larger heavier droplets, > 5 µm in diameter that fall rapidly to the ground, typically within 1 m of the source as splatter. Aerosols are composed of droplet nuclei ≤ 5 µm in diameter and can remain suspended in air for many hours and be moved by air currents. At present, dental procedures are categorised dichotomously as either aerosol producing or non-aerosol producing. The former refers to procedures considered to produce smaller droplets of ≤ 5 µm and the latter referring to procedures that are considered to produce few or no smaller droplets but may still produce larger droplets (> 5 µm). For the purposes of this review, aerosol will refer to suspensions of particles ≤ 5 µm in diameter.

This review aims to critically assess existing knowledge and reduce uncertainty around dental procedures that generate droplets and aerosol, supporting policy making and local IPC protocols.

Research question

What is known and what is not known about aerosols and droplets relevant to clinical dentistry?

Objectives:

1. To identify and catalogue activities within clinical dentistry and the dental surgery that generate aerosols and droplets

2. For these activities, to:

   1. Characterise the pattern of droplet and aerosol spread and settle relevant to the dental surgery and dental laboratories

   2. Identify whether there is evidence of an association with exposure, infection and transmission of pathogenic micro-organisms

   3. List micro-organisms that have been studied

   4. Record outcomes and outcome measures

3. To identify gaps in the evidence related to aerosols and droplets relevant to clinical dentistry

Methods

Results

There were 83 studies (Appendix 3) which met the inclusion criteria and for which we could obtain full manuscripts (see PRISMA flow chart Figure 1.).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009) flow chart. A full description of study characteristics can be found in Appendix 4.

Studies originated from 24 countries, the majority conducted in the USA (n=26) and India (n= 21). They were published between 1963 to 2020 with 43/83 (52%) of the studies published in the last decade (Figure 2.)

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Publications by date (n=81; 2 publications from 2020 were not included).

A full description of the studies’ characteristics and the data extracted can be found in Appendix 4.

The extracted data were heterogeneous across key characteristics, including; aims, methodology and outcomes. A narrative summary was undertaken and within study comparisons of relative contamination made. Whilst there were no studies showing a direct association between dental procedures with exposure, infection and transmission of pathogenic micro-organisms (outcome 2b), there was evidence of contamination of persons in the dental surgery and the surgery environment (surfaces, equipment etc.) and air from all procedures investigated although the levels of contamination varied (Appendix 4).

Approaches to the investigation varied: some studied procedures, some instruments and some both. Data were separated into the following categories: USS (n=44 studies), HSAR (n=31); oral surgery (n=11), slow-speed handpiece (n=4); air-water syringe (n=4), air polishing (n=4), prophylaxis with cup and pumice (n=2) and hand scaling (n=2).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 1

Main characteristics of the included studies categorised by dental procedure/ instrument use (n=83). Please note that the numbering in this table refers to the list of references (included studies) in Appendix 3 and are not the same numbering system as found in the main text.

Settle plates were used in 48 studies, 12 used visual inspection and 23 used air samplers (specific for aerosol). The main findings for each of the instruments/ procedure categories is summarised below (n= number of studies), with further detail provided in Table 1 and Appendix 4.

Relative contamination levels

Although there were 83 studies, the degree of heterogeneity in methodology meant it was not possible to compare data between them. The outcome of interest was contamination. It could be grouped as being microbial, blood and non-microbial/non-blood. However, within these, there were a large variety of outcome measures (Appendix 4). For example, even within those looking at colony forming units, the outcome measures encompassed; whole plate (CFU/mm²); (CFU/mm³); (CFU/cm²); (CFU/m³), volume of sampled air (CFU/cm /min), Index of Microbial Air Contamination (CFU/m /h) and rate of production (CFU/min).

However, it was evident that there was a hierarchy of contamination levels with some procedures generating more contamination than others. A network diagram (Figure 3) illustrates where intra-study comparisons exist. Data from these 13 studies were tabulated (Appendix 5, Table 1) and compared for relative contamination levels within studies (Appendix 5, Table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Network diagram illustrating where studies included comparison between different procedures within them. (See also Appendix 5). The nodes represent the eight procedures and the lines between them show where a study compares them. The number of studies is shown by ‘n=’ and also the relative thickness of the lines. Where a node has no linkages, there are no studies comparing it with another procedure.

These studies and their data were then categorised as higher, moderate and lower relative contamination levels (Figure 4). This is a proposed hierarchy model and it should be noted that positions denote relative positions along a spectrum rather than definitive cut-offs between the three levels.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Proposed levels of contamination associated with different procedures, drawn from Appendix 5 showing levels of contamination within studies to minimize dissimilarities in methodology, procedures and outcomes that might account for differences. Note that this must be interpreted with caution and will need to be modified as further evidence becomes available. *Indicates very low certainty.

Discussion

The 83 studies included in this review looked at eight different activities classified as; USSs, HSAR and slow-speed handpieces, oral surgery, air-water syringe, air polishing and hand scaling. There was heterogeneity between methodologies used to investigate contamination and a lack of consistency even when the same methodology was used by different studies. Few studies used a high sensitivity measure making under-reporting of levels of contamination a concern. Despite the variable methodology and broadly low sensitivity of the methods used, all activities and all studies identified contamination from droplets that had either settled (splatter) or droplet nuclei remaining in the air as aerosol and at the furthest points studied.

Contamination levels varied with some activities such as hand scaling generating contamination no greater than occurs during speaking [21]. The greatest levels of contamination were found with procedures involving powered devices and water (HSAR and USS). Devices that used air and water together also generated splatter and aerosol and highest nearest the patient. It was not possible to draw conclusions around the use of the slow-speed handpiece with any certainty because no study compared it with anything else for either use of carious tissue removal or orthodontic cement removal.

Although dental procedures are commonly categorised dichotomously as either aerosol producing or non-aerosol producing, this is an over-simplification, bearing in mind that while droplet nuclei ≤ 5 µm in diameter are categorised as aerosols, in reality droplet size lies on a continuum. Since SARS-CoV2 transmission has been reported up to 4 m from the source [43], aerosol transmission remains a possibility.

The majority of studies used a settle plate methodology which is limited to capturing droplets which can carry viruses. Settle plates can detect droplets that have fallen onto a surface. However, air turbulence caused by movement in the surgery may affect what is captured. Air samplers, most of which actively sample the air in the room, will therefore detect both aerosol and airborne droplets before they have fallen to ground (n=23 studies). Many of the studies that stated they were detecting aerosols, did not use a methodology that investigated airborne transmission (i.e. droplets <5 µm) such as air samplers. Most studies’ findings related to droplet splatter detected on settle plates. However, both droplets and aerosols can carry viruses although the universal precautions currently in use will provide protection from droplet transmission.

Although we identified 83 studies investigating eight different procedures, it was difficult to draw definitive conclusions about relative droplet and aerosol generation between procedures. Firstly, because diverse methodologies had been used and secondly, because study quality was generally low, especially in relation to sensitivity of measuring contamination. Low sensitivity could result in significant underestimates: for example, saliva cultured under highly sensitive conditions will yield c 10 CFU/ml but only 10 -10 using low-sensitivity methods. Thirdly, all studies found contamination as far as they measured it and most, for as long as they measured it – which begs the question as to whether greater distances and times measured would have resulted in further positive findings. There was also insufficient data to explore differences according to environmental context such as ventilation or single/multi-chair surgeries (although where multi-surgery environments were studied this showed contamination over larger distances [30, 44].

There has been growing research in this area with over half of the studies being published in the last decade. Most studies (n=62) used microbes purported to be from the oral cavity to monitor contamination from procedures. All, apart from two looking at the bloodborne virus Hepatitis B [45, 46] and three at fungi, investigated bacteria. None of the studies investigated contamination by respiratory viruses. This is despite several significant outbreaks of respiratory viruses where AGPs might have been a risk factor (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) 2003; Swine flu 2009; Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in 2012). Viruses are difficult to culture, in comparison to bacteria, which may account for this. Most of the studies looked at easily cultured oral bacteria as surrogates of contamination from the droplets and aerosol generated from the procedure. However, viruses are small (typically between 20-300 nm in diameter) and can be carried in the same way as bacteria, therefore patterns of bacterial splatter and aerosol can provide some information to inform viral spread.

None of the studies directly explored exposure (for the dental team or patient) to potentially pathogenic micro-organisms. Studies did, however, identify significant contamination relating to the operator’s head and the patient’s body when powered devices (HSARs and USSs) were used. Visors, glasses and masks were often heavily contaminated, with a small number of ultrasonic studies finding contamination under the visor and mask. The body and operating arm of the operator were subject to significant contamination and studies of the assistant found less contamination (although this varied depending on the area of the mouth being worked on). Areas closest to the patient were most affected. This has implications for decisions about personal protective equipment and the coverage needed. The patient’s face and body were significantly contaminated as a result of powered devices (HSARs and USSs) and were often measured in the oral surgery procedures were also found to be contaminated. No studies investigated contamination of other areas, notably the patient’s (and dentist’s) leg areas but there is no reason to expect them to not be contaminated, given the spread noted across surgery areas in front of the patient. This has implications for infection control measures.

Beyond time, distances and settings there were further obvious gaps in the data as a whole. These include a lack of negative controls and baseline measures, clarity of reporting over specific procedure times and time periods during and following them to see when there was no longer contamination from the procedure. However, the most concerning gap may be the general failure across the studies to report the limits of contamination for distance and very few reporting on time for settle. Studies on mitigating interventions (such as high-volume evacuators, HEPA filters, air changes etc.) may be able to clarify this area further. However, it is encouraging to see more research in the field being undertaken, with three papers published since this search was undertaken, fitting the inclusion criteria [47-49] and one further paper [50]awaiting full text assessment at the time of submission, hopefully these will add to the body of well conducted research informing risk and risk mitigation in relation to AGPs.

This review has focused on droplet and aerosol contamination relating to specific dental procedures, extending beyond previous work that looked at micro-organisms and hazards generated in dental practice [51]. This provides evidence which may be used to determine the baseline risks associated with dental procedures, helping dental professionals to identify clinical situations with increased aerosol transmission risks where mitigation would be strongly advisable.

Conclusion

Despite generally low sensitivity measures being used, there was evidence of contamination of surfaces around the surgery environment/ personnel or contamination in air from all procedures that were looked at: USS (n=44); HSAR (n=31 studies); oral surgery (n=11), slow-speed handpiece (n=4); air-water (triple) syringe (n=4), air polishing (n=4) hand scaling (n=2), prophylaxis with cup and pumice (n=2). There was evidence that this varied by procedure type. Most studies used microbial surrogate measures (mainly oral microbiota) and blood or colored water for detecting contamination following these procedures. None looked at respiratory viruses. The variability in methodology and variety of outcome measures thwarted attempts to synthesise across studies. By looking at comparisons of procedures within studies, blunt generalisations could be made over higher, moderate and lower risk procedures. There are significant gaps in the evidence and its quality that limit conclusions around all aspects of contamination for different procedures. These hamper evidence-based clinical recommendations and policy decision making, especially relevant for dentistry and COVID-19.

Authors contributions

NI, IJ, RH, JG had oversight of the study planning and execution, and to the conception, design, data acquisition, synthesis, visualisation and interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript. WW conception, design, data synthesis and interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript WA, MR data acquisition, synthesis, visualisation and interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript. SKC, RH, RJ data acquisition, synthesis and interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript. SM design of the study, provision of and management of study literature resources and critically revised the manuscript.

All authors gave their final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

There are no external sources of funding for this research and it was supported by the authors’ institutions

Conflict of Interest

All of the authors confirm they have no conflict of interest with regard to this work, to report.