Trial reportScientific reports2025
Distribution characteristics of microbial aerosols and optimization of protective methods during ultrasonic scaling procedure.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
Abstract
This study aimed to explore microbial aerosol distribution characteristics in the dental clinic during ultrasonic scaling and evaluate the effects of three different interventions on aerosol distribution and protective effects. For twenty minutes, ultrasonic scaling was carried out in a standardized operatory room. A blank control group and three intervention groups were created: high-volume evacuator (HVE), plasma purification (PP), and fenestrated ventilation (VT). The mass concentration of PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10.0 aerosol particles was tracked in real time, and colony counts were calculated using air deposition. After ultrasonic scaling, there was a significant increase in aerosol dispersion of various particle sizes and distribution within a 1.5-m radius of the core area (P < 0.05). The number of colonies in each group varied over time at 0.5 and 1.0 m from the patient's head, but there was no significant difference at 1.5 m (P > 0.05). The PP group demonstrated the greatest decrease in aerosol mass concentration difference. The VT group initially had the lowest aerosol mass concentration difference, but with a slight decrease. The aerosol mass concentration difference between the HVE groups grew with distance. Traditional ultrasonic scaling poses a risk of aerosol contamination during and after treatment. The operatory room's air can be efficiently purified by plasma purification, which maintains lower levels of aerosol particle size than other groups. Microbial aerosols created by ultrasonic scaling can be quickly reduced by ventilation. At close range, the high-volume evacuator can lower the risk of infection while the benefit diminishes as the distance increases.Trial registration: This study was registered on the website of China Clinical Trial Registration Center (ChiCTR2400090751) (12/10/2024).
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.