Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Johnson IG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7988384 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIdentify splatter/aerosol distribution from dental procedures in an open plan clinic and explore aerosol settling time after dental procedures.MethodsIn two experimental designs using simulated dental procedures on a mannequin, fluorescein dye was introduced: (1) into the irrigation system of an air-turbine handpiece; (2) into the mannequin's mouth. Filter papers were placed in an open plan clinic to collect fluorescein. An 8-metre diameter rig was used to investigate aerosol settling time. Analysis was by fluorescence photography and spectrofluorometry.ResultsContamination distribution varied across the clinic depending on conditions. Unmitigated procedures have the potential to deposit contamination at large distances. Medium volume dental suction (159 L/min air) reduced contamination in the procedural bay by 53%, and in other areas by 81-83%. Low volume suction (40 L/min air) was similar. Cross-ventilation reduced contamination in adjacent and distant areas by 80-89%. In the most realistic model (fluorescein in mouth, medium volume suction), samples in distant bays (≥5 m head-to-head chair distance) gave very low or zero readings (< 0.0016% of the fluorescein used during the procedure). Almost all (99.99%) of the splatter detected was retained within the procedural bay/walkway. After 10 min, very little additional aerosol settled.ConclusionsCross-infection risk from dental procedures in an open plan clinic appears small when bays are ≥ 5 m apart. Dilution effects from instrument water spray were observed, and dental suction is of benefit. Most settled aerosol is detected within 10 min indicating environmental cleaning may be appropriate after this.Clinical significanceAerosols produced by dental procedures have the potential to contaminate distant sites and the majority of settled aerosol is detectable after 10 min. Dental suction and ventilation have a substantial beneficial effect. Contamination is likely to be minimal in open plan clinics at distances of 5 m or more.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study evaluated particle spread associated with various common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in simulated and clinical settings.Materials and methodsA simulation study visualized the aerosols, droplets, and splatter spread with and without high-volume suction (HVS, 325 L/min) during common dental AGPs, namely ultrasonic scaling, air flow prophylaxis, and implant drilling after fluorescein dye was added to the water irrigant as a tracer. Each procedure was repeated 10 times. A complementary clinical study measured the spread of contaminated particles within the dental operatory and quantified airborne protein dispersion following 10 min of ultrasonic supragingival scaling of 19 participants during routine periodontal treatment.ResultsThe simulation study data showed that air flow produced the highest amount of splatters and the ultrasonic scaler generated the most aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m away from the source. The use of HVS effectively reduced 37.5-96% of splatter generation for all three dental AGPs, as well as 82-93% of aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m for the ultrasonic scaler and air polisher. In the clinical study, higher protein levels above background levels following ultrasonic supragingival scaling were detected in fewer than 20% of patients, indicating minimal particle spread.ConclusionsWhile three common periodontal AGPs produce aerosols and droplet particles up to at least 1.2 m from the source, the use of HVS is of significant benefit. Routine ultrasonic supragingival scaling produced few detectable traces of salivary protein at various sites throughout the 10-min dental operatory.Clinical relevanceThe likelihood of aerosol spread to distant sites during common periodontal AGPs is greatly reduced by high-volume suction. Clinically, limited evidence of protein contaminants was found following routine ultrasonic scaling, suggesting that the the majority of the contamination consisits of the irrigant rather than organic matter from the oral cavity.

Project description: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.

Project description:Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are defined as any procedure releasing airborne particles <5 μm in size from the respiratory tract. There remains uncertainty about which dental procedures constitute AGPs. We quantified the aerosol number concentration generated during a range of periodontal, oral surgery and orthodontic procedures using an aerodynamic particle sizer, which measures aerosol number concentrations and size distribution across the 0.5-20 μm diameter size range. Measurements were conducted in an environment with a sufficiently low background to detect a patient's cough, enabling confident identification of aerosol. Phantom head control experiments for each procedure were performed under the same conditions as a comparison. Where aerosol was detected during a patient procedure, we assessed whether the size distribution could be explained by the non-salivary contaminated instrument source in the respective phantom head control procedure using a two-sided unpaired t-test (comparing the mode widths (log(σ)) and peak positions (DP,C)). The aerosol size distribution provided a robust fingerprint of aerosol emission from a source. 41 patients underwent fifteen different dental procedures. For nine procedures, no aerosol was detected above background. 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, with no unexplained aerosol. High and slow speed drilling produced aerosol from patient procedures with different size distributions to those measured from the phantom head controls (mode widths log(σ)) and peaks (DP,C, p< 0.002) and, therefore, may pose a greater risk of salivary contamination. This study provides evidence for sources of aerosol generation during common dental procedures, enabling more informed evaluation of risk and appropriate mitigation strategies.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions in dental care globally, in part due to the potential for contaminated aerosol to be generated by dental activities. This systematic review assesses the literature for changes in aerosol-contamination levels when rotary instruments are used, (1) as distance increases from patient's mouth; (2) as time passes after the procedure; and (3) when using different types of handpieces.MethodsThe review methods and reporting are in line with PRISMA statements. A structured search was conducted over five platforms (September 2021). Studies were assessed independently by two reviewers. To be eligible studies had to assess changes in levels of aerosol contamination over different distances, and time points, with rotary hand instruments. Studies' methodologies and the sensitivity of the contamination-measurement approaches were evaluated. Results are presented descriptively.ResultsFrom 422 papers identified, 23 studies were eligible. All investigated restorative procedures using rotary instruments and one study additionally looked at orthodontic bracket adhesive material removal. The results suggest contamination is significantly reduced over time and distance. However, for almost all studies that investigated these two factors, the sizes of the contaminated particles were not considered, and there were inconclusive findings regarding whether electric-driven handpieces generate lower levels of contaminated particles.ConclusionAerosol contamination levels reduce as distances, and post-procedure times increase. However, there was sparce and inconsistent evidence on the clearing time and no conclusions could be drawn. High-speed handpieces produce significantly higher levels of contamination than slow-speed ones, and to a lesser extent, micro-motor handpieces. However, when micro-motor handpieces were used with water, the contamination levels rose and were similar to high-speed handpiece contamination levels.