Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33359041›Full record

ArticleJournal of dentistry2021

Evaluating contaminated dental aerosol and splatter in an open plan clinic environment: Implications for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Richard Holliday, James R Allison, Charlotte C Currie, David C Edwards, Charlotte Bowes, Kimberley Pickering, Sarah Reay, Justin Durham, Joanna Lumb, Nadia Rostami and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
20.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Future-Proofing Dentistry: A Qualitative Exploration of COVID-19 Responses in UK Dental Schools.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard HollidaySchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Richard.holliday@newcastle.ac.uk.
James R AllisonSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Charlotte C CurrieSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
David C EdwardsSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Charlotte BowesSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Kimberley PickeringNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Sarah ReayNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Justin DurhamSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Joanna LumbNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Nadia RostamiSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.
Jamie CoulterSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom; Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Christopher NileSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.
Nicholas JakubovicsSchool of Dental Sciences, Newcastle University, United Kingdom.
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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 SIGNIFICANCE: Aerosols 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.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAerosolsHumansSARS-CoV-2SuctionAerosolsAerosolsDental equipmentDental fallow timeDental high-speed equipmentDental infection controlSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33359041
PMCPMC7787509
OpenAlexW3116244608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.