Dataset Information

A Review of Aerosol Generation Mitigation in International Dental Guidance.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) led to the worldwide closure of dental practices or reduction of dental services. By the end of April 2020, governments and professional organisations were publishing recommendations or guidance for the reopening/restructuring of dental services. The aim of this study was to assess how dental aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were defined in international dental guidelines, what mitigation processes were advised, and whether they were linked to COVID-19 epidemiology.

Methods

Electronic searches of a broad range of databases, along with grey literature searches, without language restriction were conducted up to 13 July 2020. Recommendations for the use of face masks and fallow times with patients without COVID-19 were assessed against the deaths per 1 million population in the included countries and country income level using Pearson Chi-squared statistics.

Results

Sixty-three guidance documents were included. Most (98%) indicated that AGPs can be performed with patients without COVID-19 with caveats, including advice to restrict AGPs where possible, with 21% only recommending AGPs for dental emergencies. Face masks were recommended by most documents (94%), with 91% also specifying the use of goggles or face shields. Fallow periods for patients without COVID-19 were mentioned in 48% of documents, ranging from 2 to 180 minutes. There were no significant differences in recommendations for face masks or fallow time in patients without COVID-19 by country death rate (P = .463 and P = .901) or World Bank status (P = .504 and P = .835). Most documents recommended procedural or environmental mitigations such as preprocedural mouthwash (82%) and general ventilation (52%). Few documents provided underpinning evidence for their recommendations.

Conclusions

While the amount of high-quality direct evidence related to dentistry and COVID-19 remains limited, it is important to be explicit about the considered judgements for recommendations as well as generate new evidence to face this challenge.

SUBMITTER: Robertson C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8172569 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSince the outbreak of COVID-19, how to reduce the risk of spreading viruses and other microorganisms while performing aerosolgenerating procedures (AGPs) has become a challenging question within the dental and dental hygiene communities. The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of various mitigation methods used to reduce the risk of infection transmission during AGPs in dentistry.MethodsThe authors searched 6 databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar-for relevant scientific evidence published between January 2012 and December 2022 to answer 6 research questions about the risk of transmission, methods, devices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) used to reduce contact with microbial pathogens and limit the spread of aerosols.ResultsA total of 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The literature on the risk of infection transmission including SARS-CoV-2 between dental hygienists and their patients is limited. Although several mouthrinses are effective in reducing bacterial contaminations in aerosols, their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 is also limited. The combined use of eyewear, masks, and face shields is effective in preventing contamination of the facial and nasal region while performing AGPs. High-volume evacuation with or without an intraoral suction, low-volume evacuation, saliva ejector, and rubber dam (when appropriate) have shown effectiveness in reducing aerosol transmission beyond the generation site. Finally, the appropriate combination of ventilation and filtration in dental operatories is effective in limiting the spread of aerosols.Discussion and conclusionAerosols produced during clinical procedures can pose a risk of infection transmission between dental hygienists and their patients. The implementation of practices supported by available evidence will ensure greater patient and provider safety in oral health settings. More studies in oral health clinical environments would shape future practices and protocols, ultimately to ensure the delivery of safe clinical care.

Project description:ObjectivesThis review aimed to identify which dental procedures generate droplets and aerosols with subsequent contamination, and for these, characterise their pattern, spread and settle.Data resourcesMedline(OVID), Embase(OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS databases were searched for eligible studies from each database's inception to May 2020 (search updated 11/08/20). Studies investigating clinical dental activities that generate aerosol using duplicate independent screening. Data extraction by one reviewer and verified by another. Risk of bias assessed through contamination measurement tool sensitivity assessment.Study selectionA total eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria and covered: ultrasonic scaling (USS, n = 44), highspeed air-rotor (HSAR, n = 31); oral surgery (n = 11), slow-speed handpiece (n = 4); air-water (triple) syringe (n = 4), air-polishing (n = 4), prophylaxis (n = 2) and hand-scaling (n = 2). Although no studies investigated respiratory viruses, those on bacteria, blood-splatter and aerosol showed activities using powered devices produced greatest contamination. Contamination was found for all activities, and at the furthest points studied. The operator's torso, operator's arm and patient's body were especially affected. Heterogeneity precluded inter-study comparisons but intra-study comparisons allowed construction of a proposed hierarchy of procedure contamination risk: higher (USS, HSAR, air-water syringe, air polishing, extractions using motorised handpieces); moderate (slow-speed handpieces, prophylaxis, extractions) and lower (air-water syringe [water only] and hand scaling).ConclusionGaps in evidence, low sensitivity of measures and variable quality limit conclusions around contamination for procedures. A hierarchy of contamination from procedures is proposed for challenge/verification by future research which should consider standardised methodologies to facilitate research synthesis.Clinical significanceThis manuscript addresses uncertainty around aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) in dentistry. Findings indicate a continuum of procedure-related aerosol generation rather than the common binary AGP or non-AGP perspective. The findings inform discussion around AGPs and direct future research to support knowledge and decision making around COVID-19 and dental procedures.

Project description:Dental turbines and scalers, used every day in dental operatories, feature built-in water spray that generates considerable amounts of water aerosol. The problem is that it is not exactly known how much. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, several aerosol safety recommendations have been issued-based on little empirical evidence, as almost no data are available on the exact aerosol concentrations generated during dental treatment. Similarly, little is known about the differences in the efficacy of different commercially available aerosol control systems to reduce in-treatment aerosol load. In this in vitro study, we used spectrometry to explore these questions. The time-dependent effect of conventional airing on aerosol concentrations was also studied. Everyday patient treatment situations were modeled. The test setups were defined by the applied instrument and its spray direction (high-speed turbine with direct/indirect airspray or ultrasonic scaler with indirect airspray) and the applied aerosol control system (the conventional high-volume evacuator or a lately introduced aerosol exhaustor). Two parameters were analyzed: total number concentration in the entire measurement range of the spectrometer and total number concentration within the 60 to 384 nm range. The results suggest that instrument type and spray direction significantly influence the resulting aerosol concentrations. Aerosol generation by the ultrasonic scaler is easily controlled. As for the high-speed turbine, the efficiency of control might depend on how exactly the instrument is used during a treatment. The results suggest that scenarios where the airspray is frequently directed toward the air of the operatory are the most difficult to control. The tested control systems did not differ in their efficiency, but the study could not provide conclusive results in this respect. With conventional airing through windows with a standard fan, a safety airing period of at least 15 minutes between treatments is recommended.