English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Dental personnel are ranked among the highest risk occupations for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their close proximity to the patient’s mouth and many aerosol generating procedures encountered in dental practice. One method to reduce aerosols in dental settings is the use of intraoral evacuation systems. Intraoral evacuation systems are placed directly into a patient’s mouth and maintain a dry field during procedures by capturing liquid and aerosols. Although multiple intraoral dental evacuation systems are commercially available, the efficacy of these systems is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of four dental evacuation systems at mitigating aerosol exposures during simulated ultrasonic scaling and crown preparation procedures. We conducted real-time respirable (PM 4 ) and thoracic (PM 10 ) aerosol sampling during ultrasonic scaling and crown preparation procedures while using four commercially available evacuation systems: a high-volume evacuator (HVE) and three alternative intraoral systems (A, B, C). Four trials were conducted for each system. Respirable and thoracic mass concentrations were measured during procedures at three locations including (1) near the breathing zone (BZ) of the dentist, (2) edge of the dental operatory room approximately 0.9 m away from the mannequin mouth, and (3) hallway supply cabinet located approximately 1.5 m away from the mannequin mouth. Respirable and thoracic mass concentrations measured during each procedure were compared with background concentrations measured in each respective location. Use of System A or HVE reduced thoracic (System A) and respirable (HVE) mass concentrations near the dentist’s BZ to median background concentrations most often during the ultrasonic scaling procedure. During the crown preparation, use of System B or HVE reduced thoracic (System B) and respirable (HVE or System B) near the dentist’s BZ to median background concentrations most often. Although some differences in efficacy were noted during each procedure and aerosol size fraction, the difference in median mass concentrations among evacuation systems was minimal, ranging from 0.01 to 1.48 µg/m 3  across both procedures and aerosol size fractions.

Efficacy of dental evacuation systems for aerosol exposure mitigation in dental clinic settings