Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068515›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2022

Aerosol reduction efficacy of different intra-oral suction devices during ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpiece use.

Krystyna Piela, Paddy Watson, Reuben Donnelly, Marilyn Goulding, Fiona L Henriquez, William MacKay, Shauna Culshaw

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Krystyna Piela *Oral Sciences, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G2 3JZ, UK.
Paddy Watson *Oral Sciences, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G2 3JZ, UK.
Reuben DonnellyOral Sciences, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G2 3JZ, UK.
Marilyn GouldingGlobal Clinical Affairs, Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA.
Fiona L HenriquezSchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Lanarkshire Campus, Blantyre, G72 0HL, UK.
William MacKaySchool of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of Scotland, Lanarkshire Campus, Blantyre, G72 0HL, UK.
Shauna CulshawOral Sciences, Glasgow Dental Hospital and School, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G2 3JZ, UK. Shauna.Culshaw@glasgow.ac.uk.
University of Glasgow · GBUniversity of the West of Scotland · GBDentsply Sirona (United States) · US

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to significant changes in the provision of dental services, aimed at reducing the spread of respiratory pathogens through restrictions on aerosol generating procedures (AGPs). Evaluating the risk that AGPs pose in terms of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is complex, and measuring dental aerosols is challenging. To date, few studies focus on intra-oral suction. This study sought to assess the effectiveness of commonly used intra-oral suction devices on aerosol mitigation.

methodsUltrasonic scaling and high-speed handpiece procedures were undertaken to generate aerosol particles. Multiple particle sensors were positioned near the oral cavity. Sensor data were extracted using single board computers with custom in-house Bash code. Different high-volume and low-volume suction devices, both static and dynamic, were evaluated for their efficacy in preventing particle escape during procedures.

resultsIn all AGPs the use of any suction device tested resulted in a significant reduction in particle counts compared with no suction. Low-volume and static suction devices showed spikes in particle count demonstrating moments where particles were able to escape from the oral cavity. High-volume dynamic suction devices, however, consistently reduced the particle count to background levels, appearing to eliminate particle escape.

conclusionsDynamic high-volume suction devices that follow the path of the aerosol generating device effectively eliminate aerosol particles escaping from the oral cavity, in contrast to static devices which allow periodic escape of aerosol particles. Measuring the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a dental setting is multi-factorial; however, these data suggest that the appropriate choice of suction equipment may further reduce the risk from AGPs.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2HumansPandemicsRespiratory Aerosols and DropletsUltrasonicsAerosolCOVID-19Dental clinicsDental equipmentDental hygienistsDental officeDental scalingSARS-Cov-2Suction

Identifiers

PMID36068515
PMCPMC9447970
OpenAlexW4294796225

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.