Effectiveness of Selected Air Cleaning Devices During Dental Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The recent COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the necessity of protecting health care providers (HCPs) against the transmission of infectious agents during dental procedures. To this end, the effectiveness of several air cleaning devices (ACDs) in reducing HCPs exposure to aerosols generated during dental procedures was estimated, separately or in combination with each other. These ACDs were a chairside unit capturing aerosols at the source of generation, and four ambient ACDs: a portable ambient ACD; a negative pressure module; a custom made, fan-operated and wall-mounted air filter (WMAF); and a smaller and passive version of the latter. The last three ACDs were intended for mobile dental clinics (MDCs) only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This assessment was performed in two different environments: in a dental clinic operatory and in a MDC. Two dental personnel, acting in the roles of dentist and dental assistant, performed on simulated patient aerosol-generating and non-aerosol-generating procedures. For each 5-minute scenario, the cumulative exposure to airborne particulate matter 10 µm in size or smaller (PM10) was determined by calculating the sum of all 1 second readings obtained with personal and ambient air monitors. The effectiveness of the ACDs in capturing PM10 was estimated based on the capability of the ACDs to keep PM10 level at or below the initial background level. RESULTS: In all conditions assessed in the dental clinic operatory, when both the chairside and portable ambient ACDs were functioning, an estimated effectiveness of 100% in capturing PM10 was achieved. In the MDC, in all conditions where the chairside ACD was used without the negative pressure module, an estimated effectiveness of 100% was also achieved. The simultaneous operation of the negative pressure module in the MDC, which led to a room negative pressure of -0.25 inch wc, reduced the chairside ACD's effectiveness in capturing aerosols. Conversely, the use of the WMAF in the MDC in combination with the chairside ACD further reduced exposure to PM10 below the initial background level. Nonetheless, in all conditions assessed in both settings (dental clinic operatory and MDC), larger visible aerosols were produced, often landing on the surrounding environment. A fair portion of these aerosols landed on the inside of the chairside ACD flange. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment suggests that the use of the tested chairside ACD, by capturing aerosols at the source of generation, had the greatest impact on reducing exposure of dental personnel to PM10 produced during dental procedures. This study also indicates that such exposure is further reduced with the addition of an ambient ACD. However, creating a negative pressure room as high as -0.25 inch wc can lead to air turbulence reducing the effectiveness of ACDs in capturing aerosols at the source. Furthermore, the presence of uncaptured droplets and spatter on the surrounding environment supports the need to complement the use of engineering controls with proper administrative controls and personal protective equipment, as recommended by governmental agencies and the scientific community for preventing the transmission of infection in health care settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".