Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:57:47.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of aerosol mitigation strategies and aerosol persistence in dental environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2022

Shruti Choudhary Open the ORCID record for Shruti Choudhary [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael J. Durkin Open the ORCID record for Michael J. Durkin [Opens in a new window] ,
Daniel C. Stoeckel ,
Heidi M. Steinkamp ,
Martin H. Thornhill ,
Peter B. Lockhart Open the ORCID record for Peter B. Lockhart [Opens in a new window] ,
Hilary M. Babcock Open the ORCID record for Hilary M. Babcock [Opens in a new window] ,
Jennie H. Kwon Open the ORCID record for Jennie H. Kwon [Opens in a new window] ,
Stephen Y. Liang Open the ORCID record for Stephen Y. Liang [Opens in a new window]  and
Pratim Biswas
Shruti Choudhary
Affiliation:
Aerosol and Air Quality Research Laboratory, Department of Chemical, Environmental and Material Engineering, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
Michael J. Durkin
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Daniel C. Stoeckel
Affiliation:
St. Louis University Center for Advanced Dental Education, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Heidi M. Steinkamp
Affiliation:
St. Louis University Center for Advanced Dental Education, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Martin H. Thornhill
Affiliation:
The School of Clinical Dentistry, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom Department of Oral Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, North Carolina, United States
Peter B. Lockhart
Affiliation:
Department of Oral Medicine, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, North Carolina, United States
Hilary M. Babcock
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Jennie H. Kwon
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Stephen Y. Liang
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Disease, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
Pratim Biswas*
Affiliation:
Aerosol and Air Quality Research Laboratory, Department of Chemical, Environmental and Material Engineering, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, United States
*
Author for correspondence: Pratim Biswas, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the impact of various aerosol mitigation interventions and to 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 (eg, open bay, single room, partitioned operatories). We compared the impact of aerosol mitigation strategies (eg, 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 because aerosols are rapidly dispersed.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 43 , Issue 12 , December 2022 , pp. 1779 - 1784
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. The preliminary data from this study were presented in the National Dental Practiced-Based Research Network webinar on Friday May 21, 2021.

References

Harrel, SK, Molinari, J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: a brief review of the literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:429–437.Google ScholarPubMed
Dutil, S, Mériaux, A, de Latrémoille, M-C, et al. Measurement of airborne bacteria and endotoxin generated during dental cleaning. J Occup Environ Hyg 2008;6:121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, PS, Subramanian, K. Demystifying the mist: sources of microbial bioload in dental aerosols. J Periodontol 2020; 91:1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, AM, Fulford, MR, Walker, JT, et al. Microbial aerosols in general dental practice. Br Dental J 2020;189:664–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrel, SK, Barnes, JB, Rivera-Hidalgo, F. Aerosol and splatter contamination from the operative site during ultrasonic scaling. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129:1241–1249.Google ScholarPubMed
Timmerman, MF, Menso, L, Steinfort, J, et al. Atmospheric contamination during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodont 2004;31:458–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Checchi, V, Bellini, P, Bencivenni, D, Consolo, U. COVID-19 dentistry-related aspects: a literature overview. International Dental Journal COVID-19 interactive map. Johns Hopkins University website. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. Published 2020. Accessed January 15, 2020.Google Scholar
Epstein, JB, Chow, K, Mathias, R. Dental procedure aerosols and COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;21:e73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meng, L, Hua, F, Bian, Z. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): emerging and future challenges for dental and oral medicine. J Dent Res 2020;99:481–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gioda, A, Hanke, G, Elias-Boneta, A, Jiménez-Velez, B. A pilot study to determine mercury exposure through vapor and bound to PM10 in a dental school environment. Toxicol Indust Health 2007;23:103–113.Google Scholar
Helmis, CG, Tzoutzas, J, Flocas, HA, et al. Indoor air quality in a dentistry clinic. Sci Total Environ 2007;377:349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balanta-Melo, J, Gutiérrez, A, Sinisterra, G, et al. Rubber dam isolation and high-volume suction reduce ultrafine dental aerosol particles: an experiment in a simulated patient. Appl Sci 2020;10:6345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliades, T, Koletsi, D. Minimizing the aerosol-generating procedures in orthodontics in the era of a pandemic: current evidence on the reduction of hazardous effects for the treatment team and patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020;158:330–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallier, C, Williams, DW, Potts, AJC, Lewis, MAO. A pilot study of bioaerosol reduction using an air cleaning system during dental procedures. Br Dental J 2010;209:e14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holliday, R, Allison, JR, Currie, CC, et al. Evaluating contaminated dental aerosol and splatter in an open plan clinic environment: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic. J Dentist 2021;105:103565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J, Mattewal, SK, Patel, S, Biswas, P. Evaluation of nine low-cost-sensor–based particulate matter monitors. Aerosol Air Qual Res 2020;20:254270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applied particle technology website. https://appliedparticletechnology.com/. Accessed September 10, 2020.Google Scholar
Sousan, S, Koehler, K, Hallett, L, Peters, TM. Evaluation of the alphasense optical particle counter (OPC-N2) and the grimm portable aerosol spectrometer (PAS-1.108). Aerosol Sci Tech 2016;50:1352–1365.Google Scholar
Hinds, WC. Aerosol Technology: Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.Google Scholar
Ahlawat, A, Wiedensohler, A, Mishra, SK. An overview on the role of relative humidity in airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor environments. Aerosol Air Qual Res 2020;20:1856–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W, Marr, LC. Mechanisms by which ambient humidity may affect viruses in aerosols. Appl Environ Microbiol 2012;78:6781–6788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meethil, AP, Saraswat, S, Chaudhary, PP, Dabdoub, SM, Kumar, PS. Sources of SARS-CoV-2 and other microorganisms in dental aerosols. J Dent Res 2021;100:817–823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhawan, S and Biswas, P. Aerosol Dynamics model for estimating the risk from short-range airborne transmission and inhalation of expiratory droplets of SARS-CoV-2. Environ Sci Tech 2021;55:8987–8999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polednik, B. Exposure of staff to aerosols and bioaerosols in a dental office. Building and Environment 2021;187:10738 8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132320307575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klompas, M, Baker, M, Rhee, C. What is an aerosol-generating procedure? JAMA Surgery 2021;156:113–114.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Choudhary et al. supplementary material

Choudhary et al. supplementary material

Download Choudhary et al. supplementary material(File)
File 510.7 KB