Objectives The current study aims to investigate the aerosol and spatter mitigation quality of 13 dry‐field isolation methods in a simulated setup that replicates real‐life work scenarios encountered in dental practices. Methods A crown preparation on a manikin was performed on tooth number 30 and repeated five times for each setup to simulate a patient under care. Aerosol, environmental, and operator face shield spatter, and sound intensity was measured. Generalized linear mixed models were used, and posthoc pairwise comparisons were performed to compare least‐squares means when appropriate using a Tukey adjustment. Results All tested setups showed some environmental spatter formation; however, these were able to control most (and in some cases all) spatter on the operator face shield. All methods resulted in excellent aerosol mitigation when a second line of high‐volume evacuation (HVE) was added to the device setup. However, in most setups, total sound levels exceeded 85 dB, posing a concern for prolonged noise exposure. Conclusions The Prototype device and four other tested setups with secondary HVE addition completely eliminated aerosol creation as tested. Spatter of the Face Shield was best eliminated using the Prototype device. Clinical Significance Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the dental community has at its disposal equipment that can effectively mitigate aerosol and spatter.

No abstract