Abstract
Background Dental procedures often produce aerosols and splatter which have the potential to transmit pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. The existing literature is limited.
Methods Aerosols and splatter were generated from an ultrasonic scaling procedure on a dental mannequin and characterized by two optical imaging methods – digital inline holography (DIH) and laser sheet imaging (LSI). Capture efficiencies of various aerosol mitigation devices were evaluated and compared.
Results The ultrasonic scaling procedure generates a wide size range of aerosols up to a few hundred micrometers and occasional large splatter which emit at low velocity (mostly below 3 m/s). Use of a saliva ejector (SE) and high-volume evacuator (HVE) resulted in 63% and 88% of overall reduction respectively while an extraoral local extractor (ELE) resulted in a reduction of 96% at the nominal design flow setting.
Conclusions The study results showed that the use of ELE or HVE significantly reduced aerosol and splatter emission. The use of HVE generally requires an additional person to assist a hygienist, while an ELE can be operated “hands-free” when a dental hygienist is performing ultrasonic scaling and other operations.
Practical Implications An extraoral local extractor aids in the reduction of aerosols and splatters during ultrasonic scaling procedures, potentially reducing transmission of oral or respiratory pathogens, like SARS-CoV-2. Position and airflow of the device are important to effective aerosol mitigation.
Competing Interest Statement
Donaldson Company is a member of the Center for Filtration Research at the University of Minnesota, which partially supports this study.
Clinical Trial
Not a clinical trial.
Funding Statement
This study is partially supported by the Center for Filtration Research at the University of Minnesota.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
no IRB
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
0
Blogs/Media
Author Videos