ArticleBDJ open2025
Polymer waste and pollution in oral healthcare clinics: a systematic review.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Environmental impact of dental amalgam and alternative restorative materials: a systematic review.BDJ open · 2026Review
- Clear aligner therapy beyond esthetics: oral health, polymer materials, and the environmental cost of digital orthodontics.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Micro- and Nanoplastics in Dentistry: Challenges in Obtaining High-Quality Evidence.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModern oral healthcare extensively uses polymer items and devices derived from various monomeric compounds. These materials are essential for personal protective equipment, infection barriers, packaging, and intraoral devices. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased reliance on single-use polymer items, causing supply chain disruptions and higher costs. This systematic review explores the extent of polymer waste and pollution generated in oral healthcare clinics. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO and was formatted according to PRISMA guidelines and SWiM recommendations. Eligibility criteria included studies that provided quantified estimates of polymer waste or pollution in air or wastewater from oral healthcare clinics. Comprehensive electronic searches were conducted across several bibliometric databases, followed by data extraction and risk of bias assessments performed by two independent reviewers.
resultsA total of thirty studies were included in the review. Sixteen papers reported on waste audits that detailed polymer waste data, while eight studies focused on pollution caused by polymer nano- and microparticles in clinical settings. Additionally, six experimental studies investigated potential leakage of monomeric eluates or polymer particles from landfill waste. There was significant variation in the amount of polymer waste generated per patient, ranging from 81 to 384 g per operatory room per day. On-site sampling revealed the presence of polymer nano- and microparticles in the clinic air, which was influenced by dental procedures and the equipment used.
conclusionsThis review highlights critical knowledge gaps about polymer waste and pollution in oral healthcare clinics. The variability of study designs limited the feasibility of meta-analysis. Current evidence indicates substantial polymer waste generation, particularly from single-use items, as well as potential environmental impacts from monomeric eluates and polymer microparticles. Future research should focus on sustainable polymer waste management solutions to reduce environmental pollution in oral healthcare settings.
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.