ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2024
Contamination of Dental Surgical Masks by Aerosols Generated During Different Dental Treatments.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2024. 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
purposeThe COVID-19 pandemic raised the question about the extent of microbial exposure encountered by dentists during dental therapy. The purpose of this study was to quantify microbial counts on surgical masks related to duration and type of dental therapy, as well as patient oral health variables. MATERIALS AND
methodsSterile filter papers were fixed on surgical masks used during routine daily dental therapy. Thereafter, the filter papers were pressed onto blood agar plates for 1 min, before the agar plates were incubated with 10% CO2. After 48 h, the colony forming units (CFU) were counted and microorganisms were identified. The dependence of the CFU counts on treatment and patient-related variables was analysed using linear regression.
resultsFilter papers obtained from 322 dental treatments (429 masks) were included in the final analysis. On average, 5.41 ± 9.94 CFUs were counted. While mostly oral bacteria were detected, Staphylococcus aureus was also identified on 16 masks. Linear regression, incorporating patient-related and treatment characteristics through step-wise inclusion, revealed statistical significance (p 0.001) only with the variable 'assistance during therapy'. The type of dental treatment exhibited a trend, with fewer CFUs observed in caries treatment compared to periodontal or prosthodontic therapy. Furthermore, after analysing filter papers from masks used by dental assistants in 107 dental treatments, fewer CFUs were found on the masks compared to those used by dentists (p 0.001).
conclusionThe mean number of CFUs observed consistently remained low, highlighting the efficacy of the implemented hygiene measures. Consequently, it is clinically recommended to support dental treatment with precise suction of the generated aerosols.
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.