ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
Influence of flow rate and different size of suction cannulas on splatter contamination in dentistry: results of an exploratory study with a high-volume evacuation system.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aerosol-generating procedures and associated control/mitigation measures: Position paper from the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and the American Dental Hygienists' Association.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2024Review
- Particle generation and dispersion from high-speed dental drilling.Clinical oral investigations · 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
- Aerosol Reduction of 2 Dental Extraoral Scavenger Devices In Vitro.International dental journal · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSOPs recommend high-volume evacuation (HVE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in dentistry. Therefore, in the exploratory study, the area of splatter contamination (SCON in %) generated by high-speed tooth preparation (HSP) and air-polishing (APD) was measured when different suction cannulas of 6 mm diameter (saliva ejector (SAE)), 11 mm (HC11), or 16 mm (HC16) were utilized versus no-suction (NS). MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty tests were performed in a closed darkened room to measure SCON (1m circular around the manikin head (3.14 m
resultsIrrespective the AGP, SCON was higher for NS (median [25th; 75th percentiles]: 3.4% [2.6; 5.4]) versus high-flow suction (1.9% [1.5; 2.5]) (p=0.002). Low-flow suction (3.5% [2.6; 4.3]) versus NS resulted in slightly lower but not statistically significantly lower SCON (p=1.000) and was less effective than high-flow suction (p=0.003). Lowest contamination values were found with HC16 (1.9% [1.5; 2.5]; p≤0.002), whereat no significant differences were found for HC11 (2.4% [1.7; 3.1]) compared to SAE (p=0.385) or NS (p=0.316).
conclusionsWithin study's limitations, the lowest splatter contamination values resulted when HC16 were utilized by a high-flow rate of ≥250 l/min. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is strongly recommended to utilize an HVE with suction cannulas of 16mm diameter for a high-flow rate during all AGPs and afterwards also to disinfect all surface of patients or operators contacted.
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.