Background Infectious diseases physicians are leaders in assessing the health risks in a variety of community settings. An understudied area with substantial controversy is the safety of dental aerosols. Previous studies have used in vitro experimental designs and/or indirect measures to evaluate bacteria and viruses from dental surfaces. However, these findings may overestimate the occupational risks of dental aerosols. The purpose of this study was to directly measure dental aerosol composition to assess the health risks for dental healthcare personnel and patients. Methods We used a variety of aerosol instruments to capture and measure the bacterial, viral, and inorganic composition of aerosols during a variety of common dental procedures and in a variety of dental office layouts. Equipment was placed in close proximity to dentists during each procedure to best approximate the health risk hazards from the perspective of the DHCP. Devices used to capture aerosols were set at physiologic respiration rates. Oral suction devices were per the discretion of the dentist. Results We detected very few bacteria and no viruses in dental aerosols – regardless of office layout. The bacteria identified were most consistent with either environmental or oral microbiota, suggesting a low risk of transmission of viable pathogens from patients to DHCPs. When analyzing restorative procedures involving amalgam removal, we detected inorganic elements consistent with amalgam fillings. Conclusions Aerosols generating from dental procedures pose a low health risk for bacterial and likely viral pathogens when common aerosol mitigation interventions, such as suction devices, are employed.

Background: We performed a preimplementation assessment of workflows, resources, needs, and antibiotic prescribing practices of trainees and practicing dentists to inform the development of an antibiotic-stewardship clinical decision-support tool (CDST) for dentists. Methods: We used a technology implementation framework to conduct the preimplementation assessment via surveys and focus groups of students, residents, and faculty members. Using Likert scales, the survey assessed baseline knowledge and confidence in dental providers’ antibiotic prescribing. The focus groups gathered information on existing workflows, resources, and needs for end users for our CDST. Results: Of 355 dental providers recruited to take the survey, 213 (60%) responded: 151 students, 27 residents, and 35 faculty. The average confidence in antibiotic prescribing decisions was 3.2 ± 1.0 on a scale of 1 to 5 (ie, moderate). Dental students were less confident about prescribing antibiotics than residents and faculty (P < .01). However, antibiotic prescribing knowledge was no different between dental students, residents, and faculty. The mean likelihood of prescribing an antibiotic when it was not needed was 2.7 ± 0.6 on a scale of 1 to 5 (unlikely to maybe) and was not meaningfully different across subgroups (P = .10). We had 10 participants across 3 focus groups: 7 students, 2 residents, and 1 faculty member. Four major themes emerged, which indicated that dentists: (1) make antibiotic prescribing decisions based on anecdotal experiences; (2) defer to physicians’ recommendations; (3) have limited access to evidence-based resources; and (4) want CDST for antibiotic prescribing. Conclusions: Dentists’ confidence in antibiotic prescribing increased by training level, but knowledge did not. Trainees and practicing dentists would benefit from a CDST to improve appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing.