ArticleToxics2025
Airborne Dental Material Particulates and Occupational Exposure: Computational and Field Insights into Airflow Dynamics and Control Strategies.
Article in Toxics, 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.
- Review
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
Occupational exposure to airborne polymethacrylate (PMMA) particles during dental laboratory procedures poses an underexplored health risk. This study presents the first integrated Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) and real-time particle monitoring investigation of 0.5 µm PMMA particle dispersion during mechanical polishing in an actual clinic. We quantitatively assessed particle behavior in 30 s exposure scenarios by examining the effects of dental professional work orientations and comparing two mitigation strategies, rear-inlet portable air cleaners (PACs) and a Box Dust Collector (BC), with an emphasis on the safety of both personnel and patients. The findings establish that operatory airflow is a primary safety determinant: aligning the workflow with the main airflow (0°). Furthermore, the combined use of PACs and BC demonstrated synergistic superiority, achieving the optimal reduction in peak concentrations and airborne residence time. PACs alone reduced working zone concentrations by up to 80%, while BC provided a crucial 40-60 s delay in initial plume dispersion. We conclude that effective exposure control requires a proactive, two-stage engineering defense: source confinement augmented by continuous ambient filtration. This research provides a robust, evidence-based foundation for defining airflow-aware ergonomic and combined engineering standards in the evolving digital era of dentistry.
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.