Dental Care and Education Facing Highly Transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Prospective Biosafety Setting: Prospective, Single-Arm, Single-Center Study

Thurzo, Andrej; Urbanová, Wanda; Waczulíková, Iveta; Kurilová, Veronika; Mrinakova, B; Kosnáčová, Helena; Gális, Branislav; Varga, Ivan; Matajs, Marek; Novák, Bohušlav

doi:10.3390/ijerph19137693

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, a study investigated a biosafety protocol tool using 3D printing technology called “SUR-FACE” to reduce the aerosol cloud. Nevertheless, the limitation of the technology is its high cost and the patient has to hold it during the procedure [ 15 ]. In order to assess the benefit of any suction methods or devices, it is first required to evaluate the size and count number of aerosols and splatter during dental procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evolution of scanners and the creation of intraoral scanners gave clinicians the ability to take impressions without causing any discomfort to the patients. Those two technologies gave the ability to doctors to have a complete digital workflow in everyday practice [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison in Terms of Accuracy between DLP and LCD Printing Technology for Dental Model Printing

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) 3D printer compared to a Direct Light Processing (DLP) 3D printer for dental model printing. Methods: Two different printers in terms of 3D printing technology were used in this study. One was a DLP 3D printer and one an LCD 3D printer. The accuracy of the printers was evaluated in terms of trueness and precision. Ten STL reference files were used for this study. For trueness, each STL file was printed once with each 3D printer. For precision, one randomly chosen STL file was printed 10 times with each 3D printer. Afterward, the models were scanned with a model scanner, and reverse engineering software was used for the STL comparisons. Results: In terms of trueness, the comparison between the LCD 3D printer and DLP 3D printer was statistically significant, with a p-value = 0.004. For precision, the comparison between the LCD 3D printer and the DLP 3D printer was statistically significant, with a p-value = 0.011. Conclusions: The DLP 3D printer is more accurate in terms of dental model printing than the LCD 3D printer. However, both DLP and LCD printers can accurately be used to print dental models for the fabrication of orthodontic appliances.

show abstract

“…The aspect of the orthodontic specialty that is not significantly affected by AI is customized device designing and manufacturing. AI processes are well-implemented in clear-aligner mass production [ 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 ], although artificial intelligence played a significant role in safely handling pandemic challenges in orthodontic care and education [ 101 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Is the Artificial Intelligence Applied in Dentistry? Systematic Review and Literature Analysis

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This literature research had two main objectives. The first objective was to quantify how frequently artificial intelligence (AI) was utilized in dental literature from 2011 until 2021. The second objective was to distinguish the focus of such publications; in particular, dental field and topic. The main inclusion criterium was an original article or review in English focused on dental utilization of AI. All other types of publications or non-dental or non-AI-focused were excluded. The information sources were Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, queried on 19 April 2022. The search string was “artificial intelligence” AND (dental OR dentistry OR tooth OR teeth OR dentofacial OR maxillofacial OR orofacial OR orthodontics OR endodontics OR periodontics OR prosthodontics). Following the removal of duplicates, all remaining publications were returned by searches and were screened by three independent operators to minimize the risk of bias. The analysis of 2011–2021 publications identified 4413 records, from which 1497 were finally selected and calculated according to the year of publication. The results confirmed a historically unprecedented boom in AI dental publications, with an average increase of 21.6% per year over the last decade and a 34.9% increase per year over the last 5 years. In the achievement of the second objective, qualitative assessment of dental AI publications since 2021 identified 1717 records, with 497 papers finally selected. The results of this assessment indicated the relative proportions of focal topics, as follows: radiology 26.36%, orthodontics 18.31%, general scope 17.10%, restorative 12.09%, surgery 11.87% and education 5.63%. The review confirms that the current use of artificial intelligence in dentistry is concentrated mainly around the evaluation of digital diagnostic methods, especially radiology; however, its implementation is expected to gradually penetrate all parts of the profession.

show abstract

Dental Care and Education Facing Highly Transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Prospective Biosafety Setting: Prospective, Single-Arm, Single-Center Study

Cited by 21 publications

References 111 publications

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

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

Comparison in Terms of Accuracy between DLP and LCD Printing Technology for Dental Model Printing

Where Is the Artificial Intelligence Applied in Dentistry? Systematic Review and Literature Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About