Exposure of patient and dental staff to fine and ultrafine particles from scanning spray

Rupf, Stefan; Berger, Hendrik; Buchter, Axel; Harth, Volker; Ong, Mei Fang; Hannig, Matthias

doi:10.1007/s00784-014-1300-8

Cited by 37 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, they prepared an experimental group with excessive spray coating, and investigated its impact on the accuracy, which yielded no significant difference. Rupf et al reported that 4.6 × 10 6 of fine and ultrafine particles were accumulated per minute on average under conventional dental suction if scanning spray was applied, and recommended high volume evacuation for the prevention of the exposure to fine or ultrafine particles 27. Although the use of powder can increase the scanning speed and the ease of scan, inconvenience to patients may be caused during the application and removal process of powder, and the powder remaining in the oral cavity may exert a harmful effect on the body.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Park

2016

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs).MATERIALS AND METHODSThe phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05).RESULTSThe average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups.CONCLUSIONExcept for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Park

2016

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Multiple approaches may help reduce the transmission of infectious diseases. The use of personal protection such as facemasks, gloves, and goggles are recommended to reduce the exposure of dental staff to aerosol; however, facemasks are not 100% effective [22,23]. Measurements show a very high concentration of particles even behind surgical masks [23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of personal protection such as facemasks, gloves, and goggles are recommended to reduce the exposure of dental staff to aerosol; however, facemasks are not 100% effective [22,23]. Measurements show a very high concentration of particles even behind surgical masks [23]. Rubber dams and suction tubes can protect patients, while their uses are limited to certain dental operations [1,23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Measurements show a very high concentration of particles even behind surgical masks [23]. Rubber dams and suction tubes can protect patients, while their uses are limited to certain dental operations [1,23]. A high-e ciency particulate air (HEPA) lter and the use of ultraviolet (UV), chambers in the ventilation system are other protective methods that are effective after threats have become airborne and spread to the room.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In Situ Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentration in a Real Dental Office: Implications for Disease Transmission

Razavi

Butt

Chen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aerosols generated during dental procedures are one of the most significant routes for infection transmission and are particularly relevant now in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to assess the mechanisms of dental aerosol dispersion in dental offices and provide recommendations to minimize infection transmission in dental offices. The spread and removal of aerosol particles generated from a specific dental operation in a dental office are quantified for a single dental activity in the area near to the generation and corner of the office. The effects of the air purifier, door condition, and particle sizes on the spread and removal of particles were investigated. The results will help to develop technologies for the proper control of aerosols and splatters generated during the dental procedures. The results show that in the worst-case scenario it takes 95 min for 0.5 𝜇m particles to settle and that it takes a shorter time for the larger particles. The air purifier expedited the removal time at least 6.3 times faster than the case with no air purifier in the generation zone. Our results also indicate that particles may be transported from the source to the rest of the room, even when the particle concentrations in the generation zone dropped back to the background. Our findings have important implications for infection transmission in indoor spaces such as healthcare settings.

show abstract

“…In dentistry, nanoparticles are intentionally embedded into products to improve material properties. Dental materials that intentionally release nanoparticles are rare; such materials include scanning sprays for computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) or occlusion indicator foils. On the other hand, nanoparticles can be non‐intentional by‐products from milling processes for fillers.…”

Section: Introduction†mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific update on nanoparticles in dentistry

Schmalz

Hickel

Landuyt

et al. 2018

International Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanoparticles having a size from 1 to 100 nm are present in nature and are successfully used in many products of daily life. In dental materials, nanoparticles are typically embedded but they may also exist as by-products from milling processes. Possible adverse effects of nanoparticles have gained increased interest, with the lungs being the main target organ. Exposure to nanoparticles in the dental laboratory is addressed by legal regulations. In dental practice, nanoparticles are mainly produced by intra-oral grinding/polishing and removal of materials, by wear of restorations or release from dental implants. Based on worst-case mass-based calculations, the additional risk as a result of exposure to nanoparticles is considered to be low. However, more research is needed, especially on vulnerable groups (patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). An assessment of risks for the environment is not possible because of lack of data. Exposure-reduction measures mainly include avoidance of abrasive processes (for example, by proper sculpturing), cooling by the use of water spray and sufficient ventilation of treatment areas.

show abstract

Exposure of patient and dental staff to fine and ultrafine particles from scanning spray

Abstract: Effective protection is available for staff and patient by means of high volume evacuation. In patients suffering from obstructive lung diseases, the use of scanning sprays should be avoided altogether.

Cited by 37 publications

References 26 publications

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

In Situ Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentration in a Real Dental Office: Implications for Disease Transmission

Scientific update on nanoparticles in dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About