Abstract
Objectives To determine the impact of various aerosol mitigation interventions and establish duration of aerosol persistence in a variety of dental clinic configurations.
Methods We performed aerosol measurement studies in endodontic, orthodontic, periodontic, pediatric, and general dentistry clinics. We used an optical aerosol spectrometer and wearable particulate matter sensors to measure real-time aerosol concentration from the vantage point of the dentist during routine care in a variety of clinic configurations (e.g, open bay, single room, partitioned operatories). We compared the impact of aerosol mitigation strategies [ventilation and high-volume evacuation (HVE)] and prevalence of particulate matter in the dental clinic environment before, during and after high-speed drilling, slow speed drilling and ultrasonic scaling procedures.
Results Conical and ISOVAC® HVE were superior to standard tip evacuation for aerosol-generating procedures. When aerosols were detected in the environment, they were rapidly dispersed within minutes of completing the aerosol-generating procedure. Few aerosols were detected in dental clinics – regardless of configuration – when conical and ISOVAC® HVE were used.
Conclusions Dentists should consider using conical or ISOVAC® HVE rather than standard tip evacuators to reduce aerosols generated during routine clinical practice. Furthermore, when such effective aerosol mitigation strategies are employed, dentists need not leave dental chairs fallow between patients as aerosols are rapidly dispersed.
Clinical Significance ISOVAC® HVE is highly effective in reducing aerosol emissions, with adequate ventilation and HVE use, dental fallow time can be reduced to 5 minutes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) within the National Institutes of Health under award numbers U19-DE-28717 and U01-DE-28727 sub awards X01-DE-030402, X01-DE-030403, and X01-DE-031119; award K23-DE-029514; and the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences which is, in part, supported by the NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), CTSA grant UL1-TR-002345. In addition, this study was also supported in part by The Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital and their generous donors. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to also acknowledge the NIDCR practice based research network directors, Drs. Gregg Gilbert and Mary-Ann McBurnie, advisory board members, and Dr. Dena Fischer for their guidance and review of our preliminary data.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Washington University Human Research Protections Office.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The preprint data is available to readers on request from corresponding author.
