ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
Reducing microbial airborne contamination and particulate matter using different oral suctions in dental clinic: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05848245 (Reducing Aerosol And Bioaerosol Using Different Oral Suctions In Dental Clinic, Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this 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.
Reducing Aerosol And Bioaerosol Using Different Oral Suctions In Dental Clinic, Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to assess oral suction devices in declining microbial airborne contamination level and particulate matter. Materials and methods: This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted in an educational hospital with 50 participants above 18 years of age, who had scheduled an appointment at a dental hygienist clinic for scaling procedure. Particulate matter and microbial airborne contamination levels were taken at the beginning for 15 min and during of scaling procedure. Participants were randomized to five groups: low suction, high & low suction, intraoral suction (IOS), extra-oral suction (EOS) & low suction, and IOS & EOS. Repeated measured ANOVA analysis was carried out using STATA version 13. Results: Participants had aged 34.4 ± 8.1 years and the average simplified oral hygiene index was 3.5 ± 1.2. Microbial airborne contamination level for each intervention group was different to baseline; low suction, intraoral suction, high & low suction, EOS & low suction, and EOS and intraoral suction were 1089 ± 610, 296.3 ± 321.2, 43.8 ± 52.1, 17.3 ± 7.3 and 14.3 ± 3.9, respectively [P value < 0.05]. Particulate matter shows evidence of no significant difference among oral suctions [P value > 0.05]. Conclusion: Low or intraoral suction was not enough to reduce microbial airborne contamination for better infection control, practitioners highly recommended to use combination of suction devices. Clinical relevance: Using extra-oral with intra-oral suction, or extra-oral suction with low section, or high & low suction are potentially better in microbial airborne contamination reduction compared with low or intraoral suction only. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05848245) on April 14, 2023.
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.