ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Splatter generated by oral surgery irrigation and its implication for infection control.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the splatter contamination generated by rotary instrumentation and irrigation during simulations of surgical extractions. Specifically, comparisons of the splatters generated were made between traditional assistant-based irrigation and self-irrigating drills and between saline and hydrogen peroxide irrigant. MATERIALS AND
methodsA fluorescein solution was infiltrated into the irrigation system of high-speed drills, and the surgical extraction procedures were performed on manikins with the typodont teeth. Filter papers were placed at the predetermined locations around the operatory to absorb the fluorescein splatters; these samples underwent photographic image analysis.
resultsThe patient chest showed the largest area of splatters, followed by the assistant's face shield. Procedures using the hydrogen peroxide irrigant generated a larger area of splatter than those using the saline irrigant. There was no difference between the splatters produced by assistant irrigation and self-irrigating drill procedures.
conclusionsClinicians should observe and disinfect the locations contaminated by splatters to prevent the spread of infection, since using alternative irrigant or irrigation methods did not reduce the formation of splatters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Oral surgery drills with irrigation generate aerosols and splatters, which have potential to spread airborne pathogens. It is important to understand the patterns of splatters to mitigate contamination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37770667What 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.