Cyst Formation After Subepithelial Connective Tissue Grafting: Management and Review.

Lesion formation after soft tissue gingival grafting is a rare but challenging clinical scenario to manage. This report presents a unique case of cyst formation after connective tissue grafting. All previously reported cases are confined to the mandibular labial lateral-canine space, whereas the present case is the first found in the maxilla. These cysts manifest clinically 9 months to 1.5 years after grafting and may communicate with the surface, as evidenced by sinus tract or cystic discharge. Because of the unique nature of these lesions with respect to clinical history, appearance, symptoms, and location, the differential diagnosis should be limited. The treatment recommendation is complete surgical excision, which should eliminate the risk of recurrence. In this report, a novel case is presented, and the literature is reviewed to discuss etiology and provide treatment recommendations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2023;43:257-263. doi: 10.11607/prd.5300.

Aerosol and spatter mitigation in dentistry: Analysis of the effectiveness of 13 setups.

OBJECTIVES: The current study aims to investigate the aerosol and spatter mitigation quality of 13 dry-field isolation methods in a simulated setup that replicates real-life work scenarios encountered in dental practices. METHODS: A crown preparation on a manikin was performed on tooth number 30 and repeated five times for each setup to simulate a patient under care. Aerosol, environmental, and operator face shield spatter, and sound intensity was measured. Generalized linear mixed models were used, and posthoc pairwise comparisons were performed to compare least-squares means when appropriate using a Tukey adjustment. RESULTS: All tested setups showed some environmental spatter formation; however, these were able to control most (and in some cases all) spatter on the operator face shield. All methods resulted in excellent aerosol mitigation when a second line of high-volume evacuation (HVE) was added to the device setup. However, in most setups, total sound levels exceeded 85 dB, posing a concern for prolonged noise exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The Prototype device and four other tested setups with secondary HVE addition completely eliminated aerosol creation as tested. Spatter of the Face Shield was best eliminated using the Prototype device. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the dental community has at its disposal equipment that can effectively mitigate aerosol and spatter.

Evaluation of the spatter-reduction effectiveness and aerosol containment of eight dry-field isolation techniques.

OBJECTIVE: The novel coronavirus that was first identified in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, created a pandemic that has the potential to change the paradigm of health care delivery. Of interest to the dental community is the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of the affected patients that can potentially cause transmission of COVID-19 via droplets. The highly infectious nature of the pathogen has created a sense of urgency and a need for extra caution to prevent the spread of the disease and the potential infection of patients and the entire dental team. Spatter consists of droplets up to 50 µm in size that are effectively stopped by barriers such as gloves, masks, and gowns. Aerosols are defined as droplet particles smaller than 5 µm that can remain airborne for extended periods and that have been reported to be significant in viral respiratory infections. In this study, aerosol represented by particulate matter with a size of 2.5 µm (PM2.5) was measured. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Eight dry-field isolation methods were tested in a setup that included a realistic dental manikin and a high-speed handpiece that generated air-water spray. Environmental noise generated by the suction devices, suction flow rate of each setup, and the amount of environmental spatter and aerosols, were measured. RESULTS: The experimental setups showed significant variability in the suction flow rate, but this was not correlated to the level of sound generated. Some experimental setups caused a short-term level of noise that exceeded the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) guidelines and were close to the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) recommended thresholds. It is also worth noting that the variability in the flow rate is not reflected in the efficacy of the experimental setups to mitigate spatter. All experimental setups, except the IsoVac system, provided statistically significantly better spatter mitigation compared to the control. All experimental setups also were efficient in mitigating aerosols compared with the positive control (P < .0001) and most systems yielded results similar to the negative control ambient PM (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Results indicate that spatter reduction was significantly better amongst the setups in which an additional high-volume evacuator (HVE) line was used. All setups were efficient at mitigating PM2.5 aerosols in comparison to the control. The conclusions of this study should be interpreted with caution, and additional mitigation techniques consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations must be implemented in dental practices.