EC Dental Science

Research Article Volume 22 Issue 4 - 2023

Spatter-Reduction Efficacy of Different Suction Methods in Ultrasonic Scaling Procedure

Niping Wang1*, Casey J Park2, Catherine L Gatewood3, Stephen J Stray4 and Jennifer L Bain1

1Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics and Preventive Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States
2School of Dentistry, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States
2Department of Periodontics and Preventive Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States
4Department of Microbiology and Immunology, School of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States

*Corresponding Author: Niping Wang, Associate Professor, Department of Periodontics and Preventive Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States.
Received: February 27, 2023; Published: March 06, 2023



Background: The spatter or aerosol reduction of suction devices during ultrasonic scaling need to be further evaluated to better mitigate the risk of COVID-19 infection for both dental health care providers and patients.

Methods: Ultrasonic scaling procedures were performed without suction, with high volume evacuation (HVE) and with Isovac®. Fluorescein dye in the scaler water line tracked contamination produced by scaling. Filter paper discs placed at differing locations in the operatory were used to collect spatter and aerosol were analyzed.

Results: Fluorescence showed large amounts of spatter contamination produced by scaling procedures. Contamination was reduced by 68% with HVE (p < 0.05) and by 52% with Isovac® (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between these two suction methods. However, this technique failed to capture aerosol 0 - 60 minutes after ultrasonic scaling.

Conclusion: The study showed that HVE or Isovac® significantly reduce the spatter contamination produced by ultrasonic scaling. Newly-developed suction devices can be evaluated the extent of spatter contamination using this method.

Keywords: Safety Management; Dental Scaling; Spatter; Aerosol; Contamination

  1. Laheij AM., et al. “Healthcare-associated viral and bacterial infections in dentistry”. Journal of Oral Microbiology (2012): 4.
  2. Prevention CfDCa. Guidance for Dental Settings (2019).
  3. Furukawa NW., et al. “Evidence Supporting Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 While Presymptomatic or Asymptomatic”. Emerging Infectious Diseases7 (2020).
  4. Gomes SC., et al. “Dental biofilm of symptomatic COVID-19 patients harbours SARS-CoV-2”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology (2021).
  5. Xu R., et al. “Saliva: potential diagnostic value and transmission of 2019-nCoV”. International Journal of Oral Science Nature1 (2020): 11.
  6. Azzi L., et al. “Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2”. Journal of Infection1 (2020): e45-e50.
  7. Kumar PS and Subramanian K. “Demystifying the mist: sources of microbial bioload in dental aerosols”. Journal of Periodontology (2020).
  8. Bentley CD., et al. “Evaluating spatter and aerosol contamination during dental procedures”. Journal of the American Dental Association5 (1994): 579-584.
  9. Umar D., et al. “Evaluation of bacterial contamination in a clinical environment”. Journal of International Oral Health - SCImago1 (2015): 53-55.
  10. Watanabe A., et al. “Use of ATP bioluminescence to survey the spread of aerosol and splatter during dental treatments”. Journal of Hospital Infection3 (2018): 303-305.
  11. Veena HR., et al. “Dissemination of aerosol and splatter during ultrasonic scaling: a pilot study”. The Journal of Infection and Public Health3 (2015): 260-265.
  12. Bennett AM., et al. “Microbial aerosols in general dental practice”. British Dental Journal12 (2000): 664-667.
  13. Gross KB., et al. “Aerosol generation by two ultrasonic scalers and one sonic scaler. A comparative study”. Journal of Dental Hygiene7 (1992): 314-318.
  14. Return to Work Interim Guidance Toolkit (2022).
  15. Mupparapu M. “Editorial: Aerosol reduction urgency in post-COVID-19 dental practice”. Quintessence International7 (2020): 525-526.
  16. Zemouri C., et al. “A scoping review on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental environment”. PLoS One5 (2017): e0178007.
  17. Koletsi D., et al. “Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”. Journal of Dental Research11 (2020): 1228-1238.
  18. Ali K and Raja M. “Evidence-based strategies to reduce contamination from aerosolised microbes in dental practice environment”. Evidence-Based Dentistry3 (2020): 80-81.
  19. Zemouri C., et al. “Dental aerosols: microbial composition and spatial distribution”. Journal of Oral Microbiology1 (2020): 1762040.
  20. Harrel SK., et al. “Reduction of aerosols produced by ultrasonic scalers”. Journal of Periodontology1 (1996): 28-32.
  21. Sehulster LCR. Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities (2020).
  22. Taylor Davidson. “Taking your work home with you: Potential risk of contaminated clothing and hair in the dental clinic and attitudes about infection control”. CJIC Canadian Journal of Infection Control3 (2017): 137-142.
  23. Van Doremalen N., et al. “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1”. The New England Journal of Medicine16 (2020): 1564-1567.
  24. Mondelli MU., et al. “Low risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by fomites in real-life conditions”. The Lancet Infectious Diseases (2020).
  25. Chin AWH., et al. “Stability of SARS-CoV-2 in different environmental conditions”. The Lancet Microbe1 (2020): e10.
  26. Ben-Shmuel A., et al. “Detection and infectivity potential of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) environmental contamination in isolation units and quarantine facilities”. Clinical Microbiology and Infection (2020).
  27. Desarda H., et al. “Efficacy of High-volume Evacuator in Aerosol Reduction: Truth or Myth? A Clinical and Microbiological Study”. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects3 (2014): 176-179.
  28. Ravenel TD., et al. “Evaluation of the spatter-reduction effectiveness and aerosol containment of eight dry-field isolation techniques”. Quintessence International8 (2020): 660-670.
  29. Jacks ME. “A laboratory comparison of evacuation devices on aerosol reduction”. Journal of Dental Hygiene3 (2002): 202-206.
  30. Allison JR., et al. “Evaluating aerosol and splatter following dental procedures: Addressing new challenges for oral health care and rehabilitation”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation (2020).
  31. Dahlke WO., et al. “Evaluation of the spatter-reduction effectiveness of two dry-field isolation techniques”. Journal of the American Dental Association11 (2012): 1199-1204.
  32. Koletsi D., et al. “Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”. Journal of Dental Research (2020): 22034520943574.
  33. Hatagishi E., et al. “Establishment and clinical applications of a portable system for capturing influenza viruses released through coughing”. PLoS One8 (2014): e103560.

Niping Wang., et al. “Spatter-Reduction Efficacy of Different Suction Methods in Ultrasonic Scaling Procedure”.”. EC Dental Science 22.4 (2023): 23-32.

ECronicon Journal

Our Services

Quick Links

Information

Creative Commons LicenseOpen Access by ECronicon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Based on a work at www.ecronicon.net