Did the March 2020 lockdown cause an increase in patients presenting to the emergency department with odontogenic pain and infection? A single centre, retrospective analysis.

On the 25 March 2020 the Chief Dental Officer (CDO) published guidance to restrict the provision of routine dental care in England due to the rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (COVID-19). We analysed the impact of the pandemic on the number of patients presenting with odontogenic pain and infection to the emergency department (ED) of an urban-based teaching hospital, the Bristol Royal Infirmary (BRI). Furthermore, we investigated the severity of infection at first presentation to the ED. The study period encompassed three phases that represented the stages of pandemic restrictions: phase 1 prior to lockdown measures, with no restrictions to dental practice; phase 2 during the government lockdown, with the severest restrictions on dental practices; and phase 3 following the ease of lockdown measures, with return to limited dental services. Data were collected retrospectively from electronic patient records (EPR) regarding adult patients presenting to the ED with dental pain. The rate of presentations (per week) was calculated for each timepoint and compared. A severity score was assigned to each patient using a grading system based on signs of clinical infection and treatment modality. Patients' presentations were analysed at each phase of the pandemic. There was a 42.8% increase in attendance with oral facial pain and infection to ED from phases 1 to 3. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in restrictions to routine primary dental care services, which were deemed necessary to reduce the spread of the virus. However, this increased demand on secondary care services, as patients increasingly struggled to access primary dental care to manage dental pain.

A clinical observational analysis of aerosol emissions from dental procedures.

Aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) are defined as any procedure releasing airborne particles <5 µm in size from the respiratory tract. There remains uncertainty about which dental procedures constitute AGPs. We quantified the aerosol number concentration generated during a range of periodontal, oral surgery and orthodontic procedures using an aerodynamic particle sizer, which measures aerosol number concentrations and size distribution across the 0.5-20 µm diameter size range. Measurements were conducted in an environment with a sufficiently low background to detect a patient's cough, enabling confident identification of aerosol. Phantom head control experiments for each procedure were performed under the same conditions as a comparison. Where aerosol was detected during a patient procedure, we assessed whether the size distribution could be explained by the non-salivary contaminated instrument source in the respective phantom head control procedure using a two-sided unpaired t-test (comparing the mode widths (log(σ)) and peak positions (DP,C)). The aerosol size distribution provided a robust fingerprint of aerosol emission from a source. 41 patients underwent fifteen different dental procedures. For nine procedures, no aerosol was detected above background. Where aerosol was detected, the percentage of procedure time that aerosol was observed above background ranged from 12.7% for ultrasonic scaling, to 42.9% for 3-in-1 air + water syringe. For ultrasonic scaling, 3-in-1 syringe use and surgical drilling, the aerosol size distribution matched the non-salivary contaminated instrument source, with no unexplained aerosol. High and slow speed drilling produced aerosol from patient procedures with different size distributions to those measured from the phantom head controls (mode widths log(σ)) and peaks (DP,C, p< 0.002) and, therefore, may pose a greater risk of salivary contamination. This study provides evidence for sources of aerosol generation during common dental procedures, enabling more informed evaluation of risk and appropriate mitigation strategies.