Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41051658›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2025

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of aerosol and droplet dispersion during simulated dental implant procedures using three types of instruments.

Hiromitsu Morishima, Tomonari Kajita, Jun Watanabe, Kenji Kikuchi, Yoko Iwamatsu-Kobayashi, Wataru Yashiro, Hiroyasu Kanetaka, Hiroshi Egusa, Kensuke Yamauchi

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Hiromitsu MorishimaDivision of Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, 4-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Miyagi, Japan. hiromitsu.morishima.b3@tohoku.ac.jp.
Tomonari KajitaDivision of Oral and Maxillofacial Oncology and Surgical Sciences, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Jun WatanabeDivision of Dental Safety and System Management, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Kenji KikuchiBiological Flow Studies Laboratory, Department of Finemechanics, Graduate School of Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Yoko Iwamatsu-KobayashiDivision of Dental Safety and System Management, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Wataru YashiroNext-Generation Detection System Smart Lab, International Center for Synchrotron Radiation Innovation Smart (SRIS), Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Hiroyasu KanetakaLiaison Center for Innovative Dentistry, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Hiroshi EgusaDivision of Dental Safety and System Management, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan.
Kensuke YamauchiDivision of Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstructive Surgery, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, 4-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-8575, Miyagi, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the generation and dispersion dynamics of aerosols and droplets produced during dental procedures, including implant surgery. MATERIALS &

methodsDental procedures were simulated on a test model using three different instruments: an air turbine handpiece, an ultrasonic device, and an implant motor. Particle behavior was visualized using two types of illumination light sources combined with a high-speed digital camera, enabling both qualitative and quantitative assessments of aerosol and droplet dispersion. Additionally, droplet deposition on water-sensitive paper placed in three different locations was analyzed to compare dispersion patterns among the three instruments.

resultsThe air turbine handpiece produced the highest luminance intensity (mean ± SD: 112.3 ± 6.4 a.u., n = 9), which was significantly greater than that of the implant motor (78.5 ± 5.2 a.u., n = 9; p < 0.05). For all devices, droplet diffusion was lower during molar treatment than during anterior tooth procedures. Water-sensitive paper analysis revealed increased droplet deposition at the extraoral vacuum site when the vacuum was activated (air turbine: 62 droplets; ultrasonic device: 49 droplets; n = 3 trials each), whereas droplet counts decreased at the patient's forehead.

conclusionsSimulated implant surgery generated less droplet dispersion compared with other dental procedures. Furthermore, the use of an extraoral vacuum markedly reduced droplet spread during various dental treatments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data support layered controls-judicious instrument selection and extraoral suction-to reduce exposure during aerosol-generating procedures. Findings derive from a standardized simulation and should be validated in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental InstrumentsAerosolsEquipment DesignHumansParticle SizeAerosolsDental ImplantsAerosolDental implant surgeryDropletsExtraoral vacuumHigh-speed digital cameraSimulated dental treatment

Identifiers

PMID41051658
PMCPMC12500752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.