Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35855907›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Are aerosol control devices effective in preventing the spread of dental aerosol?

Elif Seher Böke, Ali Keleş, Cangül Keskin, Yeliz Tanrıverdi Çaycı, Tugba Turk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elif Seher BökeDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Ali KeleşDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Cangül KeskinDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Yeliz Tanrıverdi ÇaycıDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Tugba TurkDeapartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, İzmir, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In dental clinics, aerosols produced from dental instruments have become a matter of concern following breakout of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) evolving into a pandemic. This study compared aerosol reduction systems and in terms of their ability to reduce Enterococcus faecalis ( Methods: Closed clinic model with manikin and mandibular molar typodont was simulated. For 10 min, the air and water dispersed by the rotating bur mounted on an aerator was contaminated by pouring the suspension containing 1-3 × 10 Results: The use of WS Aerosol Defender device led to greater CFU scores on the agars levelled to patient's chest compared to other directions ( Conclusions: Although the devices prevented the spread of aerosol around the patient to some extent, they could not completely eliminate the contaminated aerosol load in the cabin environment.

Indexed as

COVID-19AgarEnterococcus faecalisHumansPandemicsRespiratory Aerosols and DropletsAgarAerosolAerosol control devicesCOVID-19DentistryEndodonticsEnterococcus faecalis

Identifiers

PMID35855907
PMCPMC9288161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.