RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A clinical observational analysis of aerosol emissions from dental procedures
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.09.21258479
DO 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258479
A1 Dudding, T.
A1 Sheikh, S.
A1 Gregson, F.
A1 Haworth, J.
A1 Haworth, S.
A1 Main, B.G.
A1 Shrimpton, A.J.
A1 Hamilton, F.W.
A1 Ireland, A.J.
A1 Maskell, N.A.
A1 Reid, J.P.
A1 Bzdek, B.R.
A1 Gormley, M.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/12/2021.06.09.21258479.abstract
AB There remains uncertainty as to which dental procedures constitute aerosol generating procedures. We aimed to quantify aerosol concentration produced during different dental procedures. Where aerosol was detected, we assessed whether the aerosol size distribution from patient procedures was explained by the non-salivary contaminated instrument source, using phantom head controls. This study obtained ethical approval within the AERATOR grant. Patients were recruited consecutively, and written consent was obtained. Both an optical and an aerodynamic particle sizer were used to measure aerosol, attached to a 3D-printed polylactide funnel 22cm from the patients face. A range of periodontal, oral surgery and orthodontic procedures were captured using time-stamped protocols. High-fidelity phantom head control experiments for each procedure were performed, under the same conditions. Aerosol was measured for each procedure. Where aerosol was detected, phantom head control and patient procedure aerosol size distributions were compared, with the assumption that if the distributions were the same, aerosol detected from the patient could be explained by the instrument source. 41 patients underwent fifteen different dental procedures. For nine procedures, no aerosol was detected. Where aerosol was detected, the percentage of procedure time that aerosol was observed above background ranged from 12.7% for ultrasonic scaling to 42.9% for 3-in-1 air + water syringe. For ultrasonic scaling, 3-in-1 syringe use and surgical drilling, the aerosol size distribution matched the non-salivary contaminated instrument source. High and slow speed drilling produced aerosol from patient procedures which appear to have different size distributions from a phantom head control and so may pose a greater risk of (potentially infected) salivary contamination. Ultrasonic scaling does not appear to generate additional aerosol above that of the instrument itself and therefore does not increase the risk to dental teams, relative to the risk from being in close proximity to the patient.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe AERosolisation And Transmission Of SARS-CoV-2 in Healthcare Settings (AERATOR) study was funded by National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (Award ID: COV0333) and has been awarded urgent public health status (IRAS-Number: 288784; CPMS-ID: 47097). T. Dudding is supported by NIHR through the Academic Clinical Fellowship scheme. M. Gormley is supported by a Wellcome Trust GW4-Clinical Academic Training PhD Fellowship. This research was funded in part, by the Wellcome Trust [Grant number 220530/Z/20/Z]. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. Bryan R. Bzdek is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (NE/P018459/1). S. Haworth is supported by NIHR through the Academic Clinical Fellowship scheme.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:North West Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/NW/0393, HRA Approved 18/09/2020)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesSummary level aerosol distribution data can be requested from the authors.