Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Int J Dent Hyg ; 19(4): 474-480, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1367314

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare agencies recommend limited use of aerosol-generating procedures to mitigate disease (COVID-19) transmission. However, total dispersion patterns of aerosols, particularly respirable droplets, via dental ultrasonic units is unclear. The purpose of this study was to characterize and map total spatter, droplet and aerosol dispersion during ultrasonic scaling in simulated and clinical contexts. METHODS: Ultrasonic scaling was performed on dental simulation units using methylene blue dye-stained water. All resultant stain profiles were photoanalysed to calculate droplet size and travel distance/direction. Airborne particle concentrations were also documented 0-1.2 m (0-4ft.) and 1.2-2.4 m (4-8ft.) from patients during in vivo ultrasonic scaling with a saliva ejector. RESULTS: Stain profiles showed droplets between 25 and 50µm in diameter were most common, with smaller droplets closer to the mouth. In-vivo particle concentrations were uniformly low. The smallest (<1 µm, PM1) and largest (>10 µm, PM10+) particles were most common, especially within 1.2 m (4ft.) of the patient. Respirable particles (PM2.5) were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Tests showed the highest concentration of small droplets in zones nearest the patient. While uncommon, particles were detected up to 2.4 m (8ft.) away. Furthermore, observed particle sizes were consistent with those that can carry infectious agents. Efforts to mitigate the spread of inhalable aerosols should emphasize proximate regions nearest the procedure, including personal protective equipment and the use of evacuation devices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ultrasonics , Aerosols , Dentistry , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Saf Sci ; 131: 104920, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-695362

ABSTRACT

With the 2019 emergence of coronavirus disease 19 (colloquially called COVID-19) came renewed public concern about airborne and aerosolized virus transmission. Accompanying this concern were many conflicting dialogues about which forms of personal protective equipment best protect dental health care practitioners and their patients from viral exposure. In this comprehensive review we provide a thorough and critical assessment of face masks and face shields, some of the most frequently recommended personal safeguards against viral infection. We begin by describing the function and practicality of the most common mask types used in dentistry: procedural masks, surgical masks, and filtering respirator facemasks (also called N95s). This is followed by a critical assessment of mask use based on a review of published evidence in three key domains: the degree to which each mask type is shown to protect against airborne and aerosolized disease, the reported likelihood for non-compliance among mask users, and risk factors associated with both proper and improper mask use. We use this information to conclude our review with several practical, evidence-based recommendations for mask use in dental and dental educational clinics.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL