Department of Optics and Quantum Electronics, Faculty of Science and Informatics, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Department of Esthetic and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
PLoS One. 2021 Feb 4;16(2):e0246543. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246543. eCollection 2021.
Dental turbines and scalers, used every day in dental operatories, feature built-in water spray that generates considerable amounts of water aerosol. The problem is that it is not exactly known how much. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, several aerosol safety recommendations have been issued-based on little empirical evidence, as almost no data are available on the exact aerosol concentrations generated during dental treatment. Similarly, little is known about the differences in the efficacy of different commercially available aerosol control systems to reduce in-treatment aerosol load. In this in vitro study, we used spectrometry to explore these questions. The time-dependent effect of conventional airing on aerosol concentrations was also studied. Everyday patient treatment situations were modeled. The test setups were defined by the applied instrument and its spray direction (high-speed turbine with direct/indirect airspray or ultrasonic scaler with indirect airspray) and the applied aerosol control system (the conventional high-volume evacuator or a lately introduced aerosol exhaustor). Two parameters were analyzed: total number concentration in the entire measurement range of the spectrometer and total number concentration within the 60 to 384 nm range. The results suggest that instrument type and spray direction significantly influence the resulting aerosol concentrations. Aerosol generation by the ultrasonic scaler is easily controlled. As for the high-speed turbine, the efficiency of control might depend on how exactly the instrument is used during a treatment. The results suggest that scenarios where the airspray is frequently directed toward the air of the operatory are the most difficult to control. The tested control systems did not differ in their efficiency, but the study could not provide conclusive results in this respect. With conventional airing through windows with a standard fan, a safety airing period of at least 15 minutes between treatments is recommended.
牙科涡轮机和洁牙器每天都在牙科治疗室中使用,它们具有内置的喷水功能,会产生大量的水气溶胶。问题是,目前尚不清楚具体产生了多少气溶胶。自 COVID-19 爆发以来,已经发布了一些关于气溶胶安全的建议,这些建议主要基于少量经验证据,因为在牙科治疗过程中产生的确切气溶胶浓度几乎没有可用数据。同样,对于不同市售气溶胶控制系统在降低治疗过程中气溶胶负荷方面的效果差异,也知之甚少。在这项体外研究中,我们使用光谱法来探讨这些问题。还研究了常规通风对气溶胶浓度的时间依赖性影响。模拟了日常患者治疗情况。测试设置由应用仪器及其喷雾方向(高速涡轮机的直接/间接气喷或带有间接气喷的超声洁牙器)和应用的气溶胶控制系统(常规大体积抽吸器或最近引入的气溶胶排气器)决定。分析了两个参数:光谱仪整个测量范围内的总颗粒数浓度和 60 至 384nm 范围内的总颗粒数浓度。结果表明,仪器类型和喷雾方向会显著影响气溶胶浓度。超声洁牙器产生的气溶胶很容易得到控制。对于高速涡轮机,控制效率可能取决于在治疗过程中仪器的具体使用方式。结果表明,当气喷频繁地指向治疗室空气时,控制难度最大。所测试的控制系统在效率方面没有差异,但在这方面研究无法提供确凿的结果。通过带有标准风扇的窗户进行常规通风,建议在两次治疗之间至少进行 15 分钟的安全通风。