Aerosol in the oral health-care setting: a misty topic.

Studies have shown that mouth and respiratory tract microorganisms can be transported in aerosol and spatter. Due to aerosol-generating procedures, there are potentially various infection risks for patients and those working in health care, especially in oral health care. Dental aerosol can contaminate not only the mucous membranes of the oral health-care professional's mouth, respiratory passages, and eyes but also exposed surfaces and materials in the environment. As such, preventing disease transmission within oral health-care offices is important issue. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, an innumerable amount of (mis)information and advice on how to stay safe and prevent the spread of coronavirus has been published. What preventive measures can and have been taken to counteract this, and what have we learned during the pandemic? This review summarizes relevant literature that has addressed the presence and dispersal of aerosol and spatter as a concern in health care. It includes the sources of dental aerosol, their potential health threats, and strategies for controlling and mitigating their impact. It shows that further research is needed to better understand the potential health risks of dental aerosol and to develop effective strategies for mitigating them. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using personal protective equipment, high-volume evacuation systems and pre-procedural antimicrobial agents can help to reduce the potential for infection in oral health-care settings and protect the well-being of oral health-care workers and their patients.

SARS-CoV-2 TEST OUTCOMES AMONG DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS WITH COVID-19-LIKE COMPLAINTS - A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS FROM THE NETHERLANDS.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate, among individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive oral health care workers relative to health care workers in general and a non-close-contact occupation reference group in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrospectively analyzed based on data extracted from the CoronIT database. This contained mass testing data for those experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19 recorded from June 2020 up to February 2021. The total number of tests taken and the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were assessed. Sub-analyses were performed for oral health care and health care workers based in professional working locations, long-term care facilities, hospitals, or elsewhere. RESULTS: In total, data from 1,999,390 tests were obtained. Overall, 9.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the three occupational groups. This was 9.2% for oral health care workers, 9.5% for health care workers, and 9.3% for the non-close-contact occupation reference group. For the three occupational groups the adjusted odds ratio with the month as covariate varied from 0.76 to 1.12. The odds ratio for oral health care workers compared to health care workers was 1 [95% CI:0.95;1.05] and 0.97 [95% CI:0.92;1.02] compared to the non-close-contact occupation reference group. Interpretation of the magnitude of the odds ratio indicates that the observed differences are none to very small. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic oral health care providers were required to adhere to the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Based on the data gathered, dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like symptoms do not test SARS-CoV-2 positive more often than other health care workers or those with a non-close-contact occupation. This supports the assumption that working during the pandemic using the Dutch standard hygiene guideline supplemented with the COVID guideline for oral health care is adequately safe.

SARS-CoV-2 test outcomes among dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like complaints - A retrospective analysis from the Netherlands

Objective This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate, among individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive oral healthcare workers relative to healthcare workers in general and a non-close-contact occupation reference group in the Netherlands. Material and Methods Data was retrospectively analyzed based on data extracted from the CoronIT database. This contained mass testing data for those experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19 recorded from June 2020 up to February 2021. The total number of tests taken and the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were assessed. Sub-analyses were performed for oral healthcare and healthcare workers based in professional working locations, long-term care facilities, hospitals, or elsewhere. Results In total, data from 1,999,390 tests were obtained. Overall, 9.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the three occupational groups. This was 9.2% for oral healthcare workers, 9.5% for healthcare workers, and 9.3% for the non-close-contact occupation reference group. For the three occupational groups the adjusted odds ratio with the month as covariate varied from 0.76 to 1.12. The odds ratio for oral healthcare workers compared to healthcare workers was 1 [95%CI:0.95;1.05] and 0.97 [95%CI:0.92;1.02] compared to the non-close-contact occupation reference group. Interpretation of the magnitude of the odds ratio indicates that the observed differences are none to very small. Conclusion During the pandemic oral healthcare providers were required to adhere to the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Based on the data gathered, dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like symptoms do not test SARS-CoV-2 positive more often than other healthcare workers or those with a non-close-contact occupation. This supports the assumption that working during the pandemic using the Dutch standard hygiene guideline supplemented with the COVID guideline for oral health care is adequately safe.