Assessment of dental health care personnel protocol deviations and self-contamination during personal protective equipment donning and doffing.

BACKGROUND: Dental health care personnel (DHCP) may be at increased risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the virus that causes COVID-19, as well as other clinically important pathogens. Proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces occupational exposure to pathogens. The authors performed an assessment of PPE donning and doffing practices among DHCP, using a fluorescent marker as a surrogate for pathogen transmission. METHODS: Participants donned PPE (that is, disposable gown, gloves, face mask, and eye protection) and the fluorescent marker was applied to their palms and abdomen. DHCP then doffed PPE according to their usual practices. The donning and doffing processes were video recorded, areas of fluorescence were noted, and protocol deviations were assessed. Statistical analyses included frequency, type, and descriptions of protocol deviations and factors associated with fluorescence. RESULTS: Seventy DHCP were enrolled. The donning and doffing steps with the highest frequency of protocol deviations were hand hygiene (66% of donning and 78% of doffing observations involved a deviation) and disposable gown use (63% of donning and 60% of doffing observations involved a deviation). Fluorescence was detected on 69% of DHCP after doffing, most frequently on hands. An increasing number of protocol deviations was significantly associated with increased risk of fluorescence. DHCP with a gown doffing deviation, excluding doffing out of order, were more likely to have fluorescence detected. CONCLUSIONS: DHCP self-contamination was common with both donning and doffing PPE. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Proper use of PPE is an important component of occupational health.

Real-time Monitoring of Aerosol Generating Dental Procedures.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify aerosol concentrations produced during different dental procedures under different mitigation processes. METHOD: Aerosol concentrations were measured by the Optical Particle Sensor (OPS) and Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor (WIBS) during routine, time-recorded dental procedures on a manikin head in a partitioned enclosure. Four different, standardised dental procedures were repeated in triplicate for three different mitigation measures. RESULT: Both high-volume evacuation (HVE) and HVE plus local exhaust ventilation (LEV) eradicated all procedure-related aerosols, and the enclosure stopped procedure-related aerosols escaping. Aerosols recorded by the OPS and WIBS were 84 and 16-fold higher than background levels during tooth 16 FDI notation (UR6) drilling, and 11 and 24-fold higher during tooth 46 FDI notation (LR6) drilling, respectively. Ultrasonic scaling around the full lower arch (CL) or the full upper arch (CU) did not generate detectable aerosols with mitigation applied. Without mitigation the largest concentration of inhalable particles during procedures observed by the WIBS and OPS was during LR6 (139/cm3) and UR6 (28/cm3) drilling, respectively. Brief aerosol bursts were recorded during drilling procedures with HVE, these did not occur with LEV, suggesting LEV provides protection against operator errors. Variation was observed in necessary fallow times (49 - 280 minutes) without mitigation, while no particles remained airborne when mitigation was utilised. CONCLUSION: This data demonstrates that correctly positioned HVE or LEV is effective in preventing airborne spread and persistence of inhalable particles originating from dental AGPs. Additionally, a simple enclosure restricts the spread of aerosols outside of the operating area. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Employing correctly positioned HVE and LEV in non-mechanically ventilated clinics can prevent the dispersal and persistence of inhalable airborne particles during dental AGPs. Moreover, using enclosures have the additive effect of restricting aerosol spread outside of an operating area.

Reduction of aerosols and splatter generated during ultrasonic scaling by adding food-grade thickeners to coolants: an in-vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of using food-grade coolant thickener solutions on the amount of aerosols generated and splatter contamination spread distance during simulated ultrasonic scaling was examined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed using a phantom lower jaw placed on a black box. Simulated ultrasonic scaling was performed for 2 min using four coolant solutions: distilled water (control), 2% wt. polyacrylic acid (PAA), 0.4% wt. xanthan gum (XA), and 0.4% wt. carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). The simulation was repeated 10 times for each coolant group. The generated aerosols and droplets were quantified using a handheld particle counter, and the splatter contamination spread distance was evaluated by adding tracing fluorescent dye to the coolant reservoir supplying the scaler unit. One-way multivariate analysis of variance was performed to determine the difference among coolant groups (a = .05). RESULTS: The amount of aerosols and droplets and splatter contamination distance (p < .001) pertaining to the three food-grade coolant thickener solutions were considerably lower than those for the distilled water (control). The PAA group exhibited a significantly lower splatter contamination distance (p < .001) and a number of generated droplets (p = .031) than those of the XA group. The CMC group exhibited a significantly lower splatter contamination distance (p < .001) than that of the XA group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the PAA and CMC in terms of the three dependent variables (p > .05). CONCLUSION: The food-grade coolant thickeners could reduce the amount of generated aerosols and splatter contamination distance but not completely eliminate them. PAA and CMC solutions were more effective in reducing the aerosol/splatter during scaling compared to XA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many dental procedures generate aerosols and splatter, which pose a potential risk to the patients and dental personnel, especially during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of Compliance with Infection Control Practices Among Dental Students in Saudi Arabia Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, professional organizations issued new guidelines for infection control standards in dental clinics. The objective of this study was to compare dental students' compliance with those standards before the COVID-19 outbreak and during the pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional study entailed observing 622 dental students during their clinical sessions to assess compliance with the infection control protocol. The compliance checklist used was adopted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Infection Control Checklist for Dental Settings. Observations took place during two consecutive years: once in 2019 before the COVID-19 outbreak and once in 2020 during the pandemic. RESULTS: The dental students audited in 2019 were 1.4 times more likely to violate infection control measures compared with those in 2020. The two most common violations in both audits were not wearing eye protection and not following hand hygiene recommendations immediately after they removed their gloves. During both audits, male students violated infection controls significantly less often than female students. CONCLUSION: Dental students' adherence to infection control measures improved during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic. Compliance with personal protective equipment standards was higher than with hand hygiene practices. Our findings have important clinical implications in designing strategies to improve dental students' compliance with infection control standards, particularly hand hygiene practices.

Impact of the Coronavirus on Providing Oral Health Care in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during oral health care is potentially increased compared to regular social activities. Specific amendments to the Dutch national infection control guidelines were promulgated. This study aimed to map the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on providing oral health care during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 in the Netherlands. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was sent via email to a representative sample of dental hygienists and dentists in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Of the 1700 oral health care practitioners approached, 440 (25.9%) responded to the survey. Patient access to oral health care was severely restricted during the lockdown in the spring of 2020. A total of 1.6% of the oral health care practitioners had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during the study period, although this is likely to be an underrepresentation due to limited access to testing at that time. Over half of the participants perceived an increased risk of virus transmission during aerosol-generating treatments in their practices. A large majority (65.0%-87.1%) of the oral health care practitioners followed the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, additional personal protective equipment and protocols were applied. Factors related with compliance with the additional recommendations were age, employment status, and occupation. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic had a profound impact on both the accessibility and practice of oral health care. This survey study found that most Dutch oral health care practitioners paid extra attention to hygiene and infection control. Also, a low number of COVID-19 infections detected amongst Dutch oral health care practitioners was reported in the Netherlands. These overall outcomes suggest that safe oral health care can be provided when following the current infection control recommendations.

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.

Effects of Natural Ventilation and Saliva Standard Ejectors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Quantitative Analysis of Aerosol Produced during Dental Procedures.

The novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has renewed attention to aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). Dental-care workers are at high risk of contamination by SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of standard saliva ejectors and natural ventilation in reducing particulate matter (PM) concentration during different routine dental procedures in the pandemic period. The DustTrak monitor was used to measure PM1, PM2.5, PM10, and breathable (<4 microns) total dust during 14 procedures performed with and without the presence of natural ventilation in a dental unit. Moreover, measurements were performed near the practitioners or near the standard saliva ejectors during the different procedures. In the latter condition, reduced levels of PM10 were recorded (82.40 ± 9.65 µg/m3 vs. 50.52 ± 0.23 µg/m3). Moreover, higher levels of PM (53.95 ± 2.29 µg/m3 vs. 27.85 ± 0.14 µg/m3) were produced when the dental unit's windows were open. At the same time, the total level of PM were higher during scaling than during other procedures (data suggest not to adopt natural ventilation-both window and door opened-during dental procedures). It was also demonstrated that the use of standard saliva ejectors can considerably reduce the total released amount of PM10.

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.

Aerosol generating procedural risks and concomitant mitigation strategies in orthodontics amid COVID-19 pandemic - An updated evidence-based review.

IMPORTANCE: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has posed unique challenges to orthodontic profession by adversely impacting provision of in-office orthodontic care due to prevailing uncertainty around risks pertaining to splatter and 'aerosol-generating procedures' (AGPs). This review aims to provide an insight into the prevailing and emerging evidence informing potential risks related to splatter and AGPs, and risk mitigation strategies employed for reducing the potential risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from dental bioaerosols. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, WHO COVID-19 databases and preprint databases were searched for eligible English language publications. Citation chasing was undertaken up until the review date of 4 January 2021. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was undertaken independently in duplicate, or else by consultation with a third author. RESULTS: Following filter application and duplicates removed, a total of 13 articles assessing procedural mitigation measures were included. Seven included studies revealed overall low-risk of bias. The overall risk varied from unclear to high for rest of the studies, with the most concerning domains being blinding of the participants and the personnel and blinding of the outcome assessors. Accumulated consensual evidence points towards the use of dental suction devices with wide bore aspirating tips as effective procedural mitigation strategies. Variations in the literature can be observed concerning aerosol transmission associated with water spray use during debonding. Emerging direct evidence consistently supports adjunctive use of pre-procedural povidone-iodine mouthrinse to mitigate direct transmission risk in the orthodontic practice. CONCLUSIONS: A thorough risk assessment concerning AGPs and implementation of consistent and evidence-based procedural mitigation strategies may play an indispensable role in navigating optimal orthodontic practice through unforeseen similar pandemic threats. High-quality robust research focussing on more biologically relevant models of dental bioaerosols in orthodontic settings is warranted.

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.

Dental care management during the COVID-19 outbreak.

AIM: The level of preparedness of the healthcare system plays an important role in management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study attempted to devise a comprehensive protocol regarding dental care during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS AND RESULT: Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched until March 2020 for relevant papers. Sixteen English papers were enrolled to answer questions about procedures that are allowed to perform during the COVID-19 outbreak, patients who are in priority to receive dental care services, the conditions and necessities for patient admission, waiting room and operatory room, and personal protective equipment (PPE) that is necessary for dental clinicians and the office staff. CONCLUSION: Dental treatment should be limited to patients with urgent or emergency situation. By screening questionnaires for COVID-19, patients are divided into three groups of (a) apparently healthy, (b) suspected for COVID-19, and (c) confirmed for COVID-19. Separate waiting and operating rooms should be assigned to each group of patients to minimize the risk of disease transmission. All groups should be treated with the same protective measures with regard to PPE for the dental clinicians and staff.