Suppr超能文献

超声洁治时用于减少气溶胶和飞溅的吸引装置与吸唾器的比较。

Comparison of suction device with saliva ejector for aerosol and spatter reduction during ultrasonic scaling.

作者信息

Holloman Jessica L, Mauriello Sally M, Pimenta Luiz, Arnold Roland R

出版信息

J Am Dent Assoc. 2015 Jan;146(1):27-33. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2014.10.001. Epub 2014 Dec 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Aerosols and spatter are concerns in health care owing to their potential adverse health effects. The Isolite illuminated isolation system (Isolite Systems) and a saliva ejector were compared for aerosol and spatter reduction during and after ultrasonic scaling.

METHODS

Fifty participants were randomized to control (n = 25, saliva ejector) or test (n = 25, Isolite) groups and received a prophylaxis with an ultrasonic scaler. Aerosols were collected in a petri dish containing transport media, dispersed, and plated to anaerobic blood agar to determine colony-forming units (CFUs). The authors analyzed the data using a t test.

RESULTS

No significant difference occurred between groups in aerosol and spatter reduction (P = .25). Mean (standard deviation) of log10 CFUs per milliliter collected during ultrasonic scaling in the control and test groups were 3.61 (0.95) and 3.30 (0.88), respectively. All samples contained α-hemolytic streptococci, and many samples contained strictly oral anaerobes.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant amount of contamination occurred during ultrasonic scaling in both groups, as indicated by high numbers of CFUs and the identification of strictly oral anaerobes in all plates.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Neither device reduced aerosols and spatter effectively, and there was no significant difference in reduction between the 2 devices. Additional measures should be taken with these devices to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission.

摘要

背景

由于气溶胶和飞沫对健康有潜在的不良影响,因此在医疗保健领域备受关注。本研究比较了Isolite照明隔离系统(Isolite Systems)和唾液抽吸器在超声洁治过程中和洁治后减少气溶胶和飞沫的效果。

方法

50名参与者被随机分为对照组(n = 25,使用唾液抽吸器)和试验组(n = 25,使用Isolite),并接受超声洁治器进行预防性治疗。将气溶胶收集在含有转运培养基的培养皿中,分散后接种到厌氧血琼脂平板上,以确定菌落形成单位(CFU)。作者使用t检验分析数据。

结果

两组在减少气溶胶和飞沫方面无显著差异(P = 0.25)。对照组和试验组在超声洁治过程中每毫升收集的log10 CFU的平均值(标准差)分别为3.61(0.95)和3.30(0.88)。所有样本均含有α溶血性链球菌,许多样本还含有严格意义上的口腔厌氧菌。

结论

两组在超声洁治过程中均出现了大量污染,所有平板上的高CFU数量以及严格意义上的口腔厌氧菌的鉴定均表明了这一点。

实际意义

两种设备均未有效减少气溶胶和飞沫,且两种设备在减少效果上无显著差异。应采取额外措施使用这些设备以降低疾病传播的可能性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验