Observational studyInternational journal of dental hygiene2025
Aerosols Contamination in the Dental Practice Following Everyday Procedures: An Observational Study.
Observational study in International journal of dental hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy of Guided Biofilm Therapy in the management of periodontal disease - a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the present observational study was to evaluate the bacterial load in the air following various dental procedures.
methodsAir contamination following seven aerosol-generating dental procedures was assessed. The air volume was sampled by a wet cyclone collector for 10 min during 10 sessions of the following procedures: air-polishing, ultrasonic instrumentation, manual instrumentation, rubber cup polishing, cavity preparation with a 1:5 red contra-angle, cavity preparation with turbine and Low Volume Evacuator (LVE), and cavity preparation with turbine and High Volume Evacuator (HVE). Contamination of the sampled solution was determined using ATP (Adenosine TriPhosphate) quantification of the viable bacterial count, and compared to baseline measurements.
resultsThe baseline air contamination was 1.45 (0.85-2.04) CFUs/L of air. The highest increase in air contamination was observed after the use of a turbine with LVE, with an average of 7.38 (95% CI 3.87-10.89) CFUs/L of air (p < 0.01). The use of the turbine with HVE and the use of the red hand-piece resulted in non-significant increases in bacterial counts compared to baseline (2.98 [1.34-4.63] and 2.70 [0.18-4.22] CFUs/L of air respectively). The application of air polishing, ultrasonic instrumentation, hand instrumentation and rubber cups did not result in a higher bacterial count than the baseline.
conclusionRoutine professional oral hygiene procedures do not increase air contamination. However, cavity excavation with LVE creates a significantly higher bacterial count in the air.
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.