ArticlePloS one2022
A clinical observational analysis of aerosol emissions from dental procedures.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioaerosols and Airborne Transmission in the Dental Clinic.International dental journal · 2024Review
- Precise control of digital dental unit to reduce aerosol and splatter production: new challenges for future epidemics.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Reducing microbial airborne contamination and particulate matter using different oral suctions in dental clinic: A randomized controlled clinical trial.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of interventions to reduce aerosol generation in dental environments: A systematic review.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Review
- Evaluating the microbial aerosol generated by dental instruments: addressing new challenges for oral healthcare in the hospital infection.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Microbial Air Contamination in a Dental Setting Environment and Ultrasonic Scaling in Periodontally Healthy Subjects: An Observational Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Observational
- Effect of herbal mouthrinsein dental ultrasonic scalers among Indians.Bioinformation · 2023Article
- Quantifying strategies to minimize aerosol dispersion in dental clinics.Experimental and computational multiphase flow · 2023Article
- Droplet size distribution, atomization mechanism and dynamics of dental aerosols.Journal of aerosol science · 2022Article
- Reshaping dental practice in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic: Leapfrogging to Dentronics.Oral diseases · 2022Article
- Article
- Aerosol reduction efficacy of different intra-oral suction devices during ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpiece use.BMC oral health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.