Aerosol generated by dental procedures: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current pandemic has raised awareness of aerosol dispersion in dental offices. This scoping review was conducted to assess the amount and spread of aerosol generated by dental procedures. METHODS: This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR protocol and was conducted by searching multiple databases adopting a core search structure for each database. Detailed eligibility criteria were applied. The authors placed no restrictions on study design, year of publication, and study location. The literature search was updated on September 15, 2021. RESULTS: A total of 51 papers were included in this scoping review. The risk of bias assessment was not conducted as per guidelines. The majority of studies found microorganisms, bloodstains, splatters of aerosol, and particles in the air part of the search strategy. Publication dates ranged from 1969 to 2021. Data came from different dental settings locations. Several factors were identified that have an effect on the amount and spread of the aerosol and spatter. CONCLUSION: Although it is clear that the microbial contamination occurred mainly during aerosol-generating dental procedures, our understanding of the contamination level, spread, and half-life are limited.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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 it