Cargando…

Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation

BACKGROUND: Dental procedures often produce aerosol and splatter which have the potential to transmit pathogens such as SARS‐CoV‐2. The existing literature is limited. OBJECTIVE(S): To develop a robust, reliable and valid methodology to evaluate distribution and persistence of dental aerosol and spl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Allison, James R., Currie, Charlotte C., Edwards, David C., Bowes, Charlotte, Coulter, Jamie, Pickering, Kimberley, Kozhevnikova, Ekaterina, Durham, Justin, Nile, Christopher J., Jakubovics, Nicholas, Rostami, Nadia, Holliday, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32966633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.13098
_version_ 1783590648182472704
author Allison, James R.
Currie, Charlotte C.
Edwards, David C.
Bowes, Charlotte
Coulter, Jamie
Pickering, Kimberley
Kozhevnikova, Ekaterina
Durham, Justin
Nile, Christopher J.
Jakubovics, Nicholas
Rostami, Nadia
Holliday, Richard
author_facet Allison, James R.
Currie, Charlotte C.
Edwards, David C.
Bowes, Charlotte
Coulter, Jamie
Pickering, Kimberley
Kozhevnikova, Ekaterina
Durham, Justin
Nile, Christopher J.
Jakubovics, Nicholas
Rostami, Nadia
Holliday, Richard
author_sort Allison, James R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Dental procedures often produce aerosol and splatter which have the potential to transmit pathogens such as SARS‐CoV‐2. The existing literature is limited. OBJECTIVE(S): To develop a robust, reliable and valid methodology to evaluate distribution and persistence of dental aerosol and splatter, including the evaluation of clinical procedures. METHODS: Fluorescein was introduced into the irrigation reservoirs of a high‐speed air‐turbine, ultrasonic scaler and 3‐in‐1 spray, and procedures were performed on a mannequin in triplicate. Filter papers were placed in the immediate environment. The impact of dental suction and assistant presence were also evaluated. Samples were analysed using photographic image analysis and spectrofluorometric analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated and Pearson's correlation for comparison of analytic methods. RESULTS: All procedures were aerosol and splatter generating. Contamination was highest closest to the source, remaining high to 1‐1.5 m. Contamination was detectable at the maximum distance measured (4 m) for high‐speed air‐turbine with maximum relative fluorescence units (RFU) being: 46,091 at 0.5 m, 3,541 at 1.0 m and 1,695 at 4 m. There was uneven spatial distribution with highest levels of contamination opposite the operator. Very low levels of contamination (≤0.1% of original) were detected at 30 and 60 minutes post‐procedure. Suction reduced contamination by 67‐75% at 0.5‐1.5 m. Mannequin and operator were heavily contaminated. The two analytic methods showed good correlation (r = 0.930, n = 244, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Dental procedures have potential to deposit aerosol and splatter at some distance from the source, being effectively cleared by 30 minutes in our setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7537197
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75371972020-10-07 Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation Allison, James R. Currie, Charlotte C. Edwards, David C. Bowes, Charlotte Coulter, Jamie Pickering, Kimberley Kozhevnikova, Ekaterina Durham, Justin Nile, Christopher J. Jakubovics, Nicholas Rostami, Nadia Holliday, Richard J Oral Rehabil Original Articles BACKGROUND: Dental procedures often produce aerosol and splatter which have the potential to transmit pathogens such as SARS‐CoV‐2. The existing literature is limited. OBJECTIVE(S): To develop a robust, reliable and valid methodology to evaluate distribution and persistence of dental aerosol and splatter, including the evaluation of clinical procedures. METHODS: Fluorescein was introduced into the irrigation reservoirs of a high‐speed air‐turbine, ultrasonic scaler and 3‐in‐1 spray, and procedures were performed on a mannequin in triplicate. Filter papers were placed in the immediate environment. The impact of dental suction and assistant presence were also evaluated. Samples were analysed using photographic image analysis and spectrofluorometric analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated and Pearson's correlation for comparison of analytic methods. RESULTS: All procedures were aerosol and splatter generating. Contamination was highest closest to the source, remaining high to 1‐1.5 m. Contamination was detectable at the maximum distance measured (4 m) for high‐speed air‐turbine with maximum relative fluorescence units (RFU) being: 46,091 at 0.5 m, 3,541 at 1.0 m and 1,695 at 4 m. There was uneven spatial distribution with highest levels of contamination opposite the operator. Very low levels of contamination (≤0.1% of original) were detected at 30 and 60 minutes post‐procedure. Suction reduced contamination by 67‐75% at 0.5‐1.5 m. Mannequin and operator were heavily contaminated. The two analytic methods showed good correlation (r = 0.930, n = 244, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Dental procedures have potential to deposit aerosol and splatter at some distance from the source, being effectively cleared by 30 minutes in our setting. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-10-08 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7537197/ /pubmed/32966633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.13098 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Allison, James R.
Currie, Charlotte C.
Edwards, David C.
Bowes, Charlotte
Coulter, Jamie
Pickering, Kimberley
Kozhevnikova, Ekaterina
Durham, Justin
Nile, Christopher J.
Jakubovics, Nicholas
Rostami, Nadia
Holliday, Richard
Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
title Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
title_full Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
title_fullStr Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
title_short Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
title_sort evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7537197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32966633
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joor.13098
work_keys_str_mv AT allisonjamesr evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT curriecharlottec evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT edwardsdavidc evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT bowescharlotte evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT coulterjamie evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT pickeringkimberley evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT kozhevnikovaekaterina evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT durhamjustin evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT nilechristopherj evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT jakubovicsnicholas evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT rostaminadia evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation
AT hollidayrichard evaluatingaerosolandsplatterfollowingdentalproceduresaddressingnewchallengesfororalhealthcareandrehabilitation