Comparative Dissemination of Aerosol and Splatter Using Suction Device during Ultrasonic Scaling: A Pilot Study

Abstract

Objective: This study compared the aerosol and splatter diameter and count numbers produced by a dental mouth prop with a suction holder device and a saliva ejector during ultrasonic scaling in a clinical setting. Methodology: Fluorescein dye was placed in the dental equipment irrigation reservoirs with a mannequin, and an ultrasonic scaler was employed. The procedures were performed three times per device. The upper and bottom board papers were placed on the laboratory platform. All processes used an ultrasonic scaler to generate aerosol and splatter. A dental mouth prop with a suction holder and a saliva ejector were also tested. Photographic analysis was used to examine the fluorescein samples, followed by image processing in Python and assessment of the diameter and count number. For device comparison, statistics were used with an independent t-test. Result: When using the dental mouth prop with a suction holder, the scaler produced aerosol particles that were maintained on the upper board paper (mean ± SD: 1080 ± 662 µm) compared to on the bottom board paper (1230 ± 1020 µm). When the saliva ejector was used, it was found that the diameter of the aerosol on the upper board paper was 900 ± 580 µm, and the diameter on the bottom board paper was 1000 ± 756 µm. Conclusion: There was a significant difference in the aerosol and splatter particle diameter and count number between the dental mouth prop with a suction holder and saliva ejector (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups on the upper and bottom board papers.

Precise control of digital dental unit to reduce aerosol and splatter production: new challenges for future epidemics

“…Virus can also potentially have a wider transmission range compared to bacteria due to its smaller size [ 10 ]. Zemouri et al revealed that the bacteria-containing aerosols generated by dental treatments were mainly distributed around patient’s head, which align with our results on aerosol distribution [ 25 ].…”

“…However, instrumental methods can measure particle concentration but are limited to particles of a fixed size, making it challenging to discern viral particles [ 22 , 23 ]. Similarly, filter paper, optical, and spectroscopic methods are unable to measure particle concentration, providing only droplet counts [ 9 , 20 , 24 , 25 ]. Microbiological methods typically prioritize the detection of alpha-hemolytic streptococci or anaerobes, often neglecting viruses [ 6 , 10 ].…”

Factors Affecting Water Quality and Sustainability in Dental Practices in Greece

“…In another study of female dentists, it was mentioned that they provide more scaling and restorative services than males although the differences might not be statistically significant [97] as in our study. This could also explain our findings, because after scaling it is known that the unit brings high levels of contaminant material into the system through blood suction during the process [49], thus forcing dentists to perform a stricter disinfection protocol. As reported in the study of Reza et al [97], female dentists administered more pediatric treatments than their male colleagues, though this was not statistically significant.…”

“…Moreover, sufficient guidelines about how to decontaminate handpieces are available [19], but most of the dentists in our study and elsewhere [105,106] are unaware of these guidelines, forgetting, for example, that overnight bacterial accumulation in the handpieces can be significantly reduced by allowing water-cooled handpieces to run and to discharge water into a sink or container for several minutes at the beginning of the clinic day [101]. In the study of Schalli et al [101], though, the fact that 92.9% of water samples taken after procedures during which no spray water was used showed an increase in protein concentration illustrates that the contamination cannot be due solely to the retraction of spray water and that differences in the maintenance and antiseptic protocols used in different offices and the rotational speed of the handpiece could explain a certain dilution [44,49,103]. Other techniques such as preprocedural mouth rinsing with chlorhexidine [107], essential oil, povidone-iodine or water before ultrasonic scaling could reduce bacterial contamination on aerosol formation and cross-contamination [60].…”

“…Water circulating in the system of the city contains a diverse microbial flora which, depending on its type and concentration, is generally harmless to humans. However, under certain conditions, pathogenic microorganisms or opportunistic pathogens can reach the dental unit through the water supply chain [49]. The microbiological quality of the water samples collected throughout the city system does not necessarily correspond to the microbiological quality that could be detected at points closer to the dental practice [17,33,[50][51][52].…”