ArticlePloS one2023
Reduction of aerosol dissemination in a dental area generated by high-speed and scaler ultrasonic devices employing the "Prime Protector".
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of an external dome aerosol containment device (Prime Protector) is proposed to reduce the spread of particles within the dental office. Hence, the aim of our study was to compare the spread of bioaerosols generated by a High-speed Handpiece (HH) and an Ultrasonic Prophylaxis Device (UPD), with and without the Prime Protector dome (PP) by counting Colony Forming Units (CFU) of Lactobacillus casei Shirota, at different distances on the x and y axis. The PP was located considering the parallelism between the base of the dome and the frontal plane of the simulator, aligning the center of the mouth with the center of the dome. The PP dome measurements are 560.0mm x 255.0mm x 5mm. Petri dishes were placed at 0.5 m, 1 m and 1.5 m respectively. Aerosol generation in the laboratory environment was done three times with the following experimental groups 1) HH, 2) HH-PP, 3) UPD, 4) UPD-PP. Each dental device activation (HH and UPD) had a time frame of 2 minutes on the upper anterior teeth of the dental phantom with a liquid suspension containing Lactobacillus casei Shirota (YAKULT 0836A 0123; 1027F 0407). Air pressure and ventilation were parameterized. No separate high-volume evacuation used, nor was there any air removal attached to the dome. Results showed no significant difference between distance and axis in the CFU count. When means for devices and distances were compared between each of them all showed significant differences except for UPD and UPD-PP (p <0,004). In conclusion, external devices like Prime Protector could help decrease aerosol diffusion during high-speed handpiece activation. However, this dome does not replace the use of PPE inside dental clinics.
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.