Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37702832›Full record

ReviewOdontology2024

Bacterial contamination potential of personal protective equipment itself in dental aerosol-producing treatments.

Madline Priska Gund, Jusef Naim, Stefan Rupf, Barbara Gärtner, Matthias Hannig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Odontology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Madline Priska GundDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Saarland University Hospital, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 100, Building 73, 66421, Homburg, Saar, Germany. madline.gund@uks.eu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9053-8864
Jusef NaimDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Saarland University Hospital, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 100, Building 73, 66421, Homburg, Saar, Germany.
Stefan RupfDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Saarland University Hospital, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 100, Building 73, 66421, Homburg, Saar, Germany.
Barbara GärtnerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Department of Hospital Hygiene, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Matthias HannigDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Saarland University Hospital, Saarland University, Kirrberger Str. 100, Building 73, 66421, Homburg, Saar, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal protective equipment (PPE) has long been a high priority in dental aerosol-producing treatments. Since COVID-19 pandemic, its importance has increased yet again. While importance of PPE in preventing transmission and thus possible infection of pathogens is well known, contamination potential of PPE after treatment itself is less investigated. This review aims to give an overview of the current literature and contamination potential (viral, blood, bacterial) of components of protective equipment itself. The literature search was performed using the Medline database; furthermore, a hand search was conducted. Last search took place on 23 November 2022. Two categories of hygiene-related keywords were formed (category A: mask, face shield, goggles, eyewear, personal protective equipment; category B: contamination, aerosol). Each keyword from one category was combined with all keywords from the other one. In addition, the keyword "dental" was always added. First, a title and abstract screening was performed. Afterward, a full-text analysis was followed for the included studies. A total of 648 search hits were found in the Medline database. 47 were included after title and abstract screening. 22 studies were excluded after full-text analysis, 25 studies were included. The hand search resulted in 4 studies that were included. Bacterial contamination of PPE after treatment has been adequately studied, contamination with blood less. Microorganisms mainly originate from the oral and cutaneous flora; however, a transmission of potential pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus or Escherichia coli was also described. Studies showing transmission pathways starting from PPE and its various components are lacking. No measures have yet been described that fully protect the protective equipment from contamination. There is growing awareness that PPE itself can be a source of pathogen transmission, and thus possible infection. Therefore, not only wearing of protective clothing, but also conscious handling of it is crucial for transmission and possible infection prevention. However, studies showing transmission pathways starting from PPE and its various components are lacking. Several studies have investigated what measures can be taken to protect the protective equipment itself. So far, none of the methods evaluated can prevent contamination of PPE.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalPersonal Protective EquipmentRespiratory Aerosols and DropletsAerosolsCHXContaminationInfection controlPersonal protective equipment (PPE)

Identifiers

PMID37702832
PMCPMC10925564

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.