Monkeypox: what do dental professionals need to know?

Infection control is critical for the safe delivery of dental care. Infection control practices must be responsive to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases and outbreaks, as was clearly seen during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. An emerging global outbreak of the monkeypox virus has again raised potential challenges for infection control in dentistry. Monkeypox is an infectious disease, characterised by a rash affecting the skin and soft tissues, including the oral cavity. Previously, cases were mostly seen following contact with infected animals in Central and West Africa, with limited human-to-human transmission within and outside of these areas. However, since May 2022, sustained human-to-human transmission has occurred globally. Monkeypox can be transmitted via close contact with an infected person, contaminated objects and surfaces, or by droplets and possibly aerosols, which is therefore of potential importance to dental settings. This article discusses the relevance of monkeypox to dental professionals, the typical presentation of the disease, its potential impact on infection prevention and control practices and the delivery of dental services. The current monkeypox outbreak highlights the need for a more sustained programme of research into dental infection control that can provide a solid evidence base to underpin preparedness planning for future outbreaks and pandemics.

Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Dental procedures often produce aerosol and splatter which have the potential to transmit pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. The existing literature is limited. OBJECTIVE(S): To develop a robust, reliable and valid methodology to evaluate distribution and persistence of dental aerosol and splatter, including the evaluation of clinical procedures. METHODS: Fluorescein was introduced into the irrigation reservoirs of a high-speed air-turbine, ultrasonic scaler and 3-in-1 spray, and procedures were performed on a mannequin in triplicate. Filter papers were placed in the immediate environment. The impact of dental suction and assistant presence were also evaluated. Samples were analysed using photographic image analysis and spectrofluorometric analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated and Pearson's correlation for comparison of analytic methods. RESULTS: All procedures were aerosol and splatter generating. Contamination was highest closest to the source, remaining high to 1-1.5 m. Contamination was detectable at the maximum distance measured (4 m) for high-speed air-turbine with maximum relative fluorescence units (RFU) being: 46,091 at 0.5 m, 3,541 at 1.0 m and 1,695 at 4 m. There was uneven spatial distribution with highest levels of contamination opposite the operator. Very low levels of contamination (≤0.1% of original) were detected at 30 and 60 minutes post-procedure. Suction reduced contamination by 67-75% at 0.5-1.5 m. Mannequin and operator were heavily contaminated. The two analytic methods showed good correlation (r = 0.930, n = 244, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Dental procedures have potential to deposit aerosol and splatter at some distance from the source, being effectively cleared by 30 minutes in our setting.

The effect of high-speed dental handpiece coolant delivery and design on aerosol and droplet production.

OBJECTIVES: High-speed dental instruments produce aerosol and droplets. The objective of this study was to evaluate aerosol and droplet production from a novel electric micromotor handpiece (without compressed air coolant) in real world clinical settings. METHODS: 10-minute upper incisor crown preparations were performed in triplicate in an open-plan clinic with mechanical ventilation providing 3.45 air changes per hour. A 1:5 ratio electric micromotor handpiece which allows water coolant without compressed air (Ti-Max Z95L, NSK) was used at three speeds: 60,000 (60 K), 120,000 (120 K), and 200,000 (200 K) revolutions per minute. Coolant solutions contained fluorescein sodium as a tracer (2.65 mmol L - 1). High-speed air-turbine positive control, and negative control conditions were conducted. Aerosol production was evaluated at 3 locations (0.5 m, 1.5 m, and 1.7 m) using: (1) an optical particle counter (OPC; 3016-IAQ, Lighthouse) to detect all aerosol; and (2) a liquid cyclone air sampler (BioSampler, SKC Ltd.) to detect aerosolised fluorescein, which was quantified by spectrofluorometric analysis. Settled droplets were detected by spectrofluorometric analysis of filter papers placed onto a rig across the open-plan clinic. RESULTS: Local (within treatment bay) settled droplet contamination was elevated above negative control for all conditions, with no difference between conditions. Settled droplet contamination was not detected above negative controls outside the treatment bay for any condition. Aerosol detection at 1.5 m and 1.7 m, was only increased for the air-turbine positive control condition. At 0.5 m, aerosol levels were highly elevated for the air-turbine, minimally elevated for 200 K and 120 K, and not elevated for 60 K. CONCLUSIONS: Electric micromotor handpieces which use water-jet coolant alone without compressed air produce localised (within treatment bay) droplet contamination, but are unlikely to produce aerosol contamination beyond the immediate treatment area (1.5 m), allowing them to be used safely in most open-plan clinic settings.

Evaluating splatter and settled aerosol during orthodontic debonding: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction Dental procedures produce splatter and aerosol which have potential to spread pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. Mixed evidence exists on the aerosol-generating potential of orthodontic procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate splatter and/or settled aerosol contamination during orthodontic debonding.Material and methods Fluorescein dye was introduced into the oral cavity of a mannequin. Orthodontic debonding was undertaken with surrounding samples collected. Composite bonding cement was removed using a speed-increasing handpiece with dental suction. A positive control condition included a water-cooled, high-speed air-turbine crown preparation. Samples were analysed using digital image analysis and spectrofluorometric analysis.Results Contamination across the eight-metre experimental rig was 3% of the positive control on spectrofluorometric analysis and 0% on image analysis. Contamination of the operator, assistant and mannequin was 8%, 25% and 28% of the positive control, respectively.Discussion Splatter and settled aerosol from orthodontic debonding is distributed mainly within the immediate locality of the mannequin. Widespread contamination was not observed.Conclusions Orthodontic debonding is unlikely to produce widespread contamination via splatter and settled aerosol, but localised contamination is likely. This highlights the importance of personal protective equipment for the operator, assistant and patient. Further work is required to examine suspended aerosol.

Evaluating contaminated dental aerosol and splatter in an open plan clinic environment: Implications for the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Identify splatter/aerosol distribution from dental procedures in an open plan clinic and explore aerosol settling time after dental procedures. METHODS: In two experimental designs using simulated dental procedures on a mannequin, fluorescein dye was introduced: (1) into the irrigation system of an air-turbine handpiece; (2) into the mannequin's mouth. Filter papers were placed in an open plan clinic to collect fluorescein. An 8-metre diameter rig was used to investigate aerosol settling time. Analysis was by fluorescence photography and spectrofluorometry. RESULTS: Contamination distribution varied across the clinic depending on conditions. Unmitigated procedures have the potential to deposit contamination at large distances. Medium volume dental suction (159 L/min air) reduced contamination in the procedural bay by 53%, and in other areas by 81-83%. Low volume suction (40 L/min air) was similar. Cross-ventilation reduced contamination in adjacent and distant areas by 80-89%. In the most realistic model (fluorescein in mouth, medium volume suction), samples in distant bays (≥5 m head-to-head chair distance) gave very low or zero readings (< 0.0016% of the fluorescein used during the procedure). Almost all (99.99%) of the splatter detected was retained within the procedural bay/walkway. After 10 min, very little additional aerosol settled. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-infection risk from dental procedures in an open plan clinic appears small when bays are ≥ 5 m apart. Dilution effects from instrument water spray were observed, and dental suction is of benefit. Most settled aerosol is detected within 10 min indicating environmental cleaning may be appropriate after this. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Aerosols produced by dental procedures have the potential to contaminate distant sites and the majority of settled aerosol is detectable after 10 min. Dental suction and ventilation have a substantial beneficial effect. Contamination is likely to be minimal in open plan clinics at distances of 5 m or more.

The first six weeks - setting up a UK urgent dental care centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has posed many challenges, including provision of urgent dental care. This paper presents a prospective service evaluation during establishment of urgent dental care in the North East of England over a six-week period.Aim To monitor patient volumes, demographics and outcomes at the North East urgent dental care centre and confirm appropriate care pathways.Main outcome methods Data were collected on key characteristics of patients accessing urgent care from 23 March to 3 May 2020. Analysis was with descriptive statistics.Results There were 1,746 patient triages (1,595 telephone and 151 face-to-face), resulting in 1,322 clinical consultations. The most common diagnoses were symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or apical periodontitis. Sixty-five percent of clinical consultations resulted in extractions and 0.8% in an aerosol generating procedure. Patients travelled 25 km on average to access care; however, this reduced as more urgent care centres were established. The majority of patients were asymptomatic of COVID-19 and, to our knowledge, no staff acquired infection due to occupational exposure.Conclusion The urgent dental care centre effectively managed urgent and emergency dental care, with appropriate patient pathways established over the six-week period. Dental preparedness for future pandemic crises could be improved and informed by this data.