Efficacy of High-volume Evacuator in Aerosol Reduction: Truth or Myth? A Clinical and Microbiological Study

Desarda, Hitesh; Gurav, Abhijit N.; Dharmadhikari, C A; Shete, Abhijeet R.; Gaikwad, Subodh

doi:10.5681/joddd.2014.032

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These may explain the difference. However, the result of the current study is consistent with those of Desarda et al (2014) and Holloman et al (2015) . Desarda et al (2014) found no statistically significant difference for aerosols reduction with and without HVE either at 12 or 20 inches from patient's oral cavity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…However, the result of the current study is consistent with those of Desarda et al (2014) and Holloman et al (2015) . Desarda et al (2014) found no statistically significant difference for aerosols reduction with and without HVE either at 12 or 20 inches from patient's oral cavity. Holloman et al (2015) found that neither saliva ejectors nor HVE devices could reduce the aerosols and splatter effectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ultrafine particles exposure is associated with specific operative procedures in a multi-chair dental clinic

Tang

Wen

Zhang

et al. 2022

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Ultrafine particles exposure is associated with specific operative procedures in a multi-chair dental clinic

Tang

Wen

Zhang

et al. 2022

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The influence of HVS on particles generated by dental procedures is typically measured using culture-based methods focusing on aerobic bacteria, rather than on salivary proteins, as in the present study. The correct use of HVS has been shown to reduce the level of bacteria in bioaerosols during and after the procedure [ 28 , 30 , 31 ]. The present results showed that 37.5–96% of splatters were reduced by HVS for three dental AGPs at various locations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulated and clinical aerosol spread in common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study evaluated particle spread associated with various common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in simulated and clinical settings. Materials and methods A simulation study visualized the aerosols, droplets, and splatter spread with and without high-volume suction (HVS, 325 L/min) during common dental AGPs, namely ultrasonic scaling, air flow prophylaxis, and implant drilling after fluorescein dye was added to the water irrigant as a tracer. Each procedure was repeated 10 times. A complementary clinical study measured the spread of contaminated particles within the dental operatory and quantified airborne protein dispersion following 10 min of ultrasonic supragingival scaling of 19 participants during routine periodontal treatment. Results The simulation study data showed that air flow produced the highest amount of splatters and the ultrasonic scaler generated the most aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m away from the source. The use of HVS effectively reduced 37.5–96% of splatter generation for all three dental AGPs, as well as 82–93% of aerosol and droplet particles at 1.2 m for the ultrasonic scaler and air polisher. In the clinical study, higher protein levels above background levels following ultrasonic supragingival scaling were detected in fewer than 20% of patients, indicating minimal particle spread. Conclusions While three common periodontal AGPs produce aerosols and droplet particles up to at least 1.2 m from the source, the use of HVS is of significant benefit. Routine ultrasonic supragingival scaling produced few detectable traces of salivary protein at various sites throughout the 10-min dental operatory. Clinical relevance The likelihood of aerosol spread to distant sites during common periodontal AGPs is greatly reduced by high-volume suction. Clinically, limited evidence of protein contaminants was found following routine ultrasonic scaling, suggesting that the the majority of the contamination consisits of the irrigant rather than organic matter from the oral cavity.

show abstract

“…However, oral suction was not determined clearly, and the spread of oral bacteria was measured by the passive sample method and by taking swab samples from surfaces ( Senpuku et al, 2021 ). In contrast to Desarda et al study, performing low suction ejector or low & high suctions were not shown any difference in CFU count ( Desarda et al, 2014 ). These results may be related to different sampling techniques as they used a passive sample while in the present study we used an active sampling method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Reducing microbial airborne contamination and particulate matter using different oral suctions in dental clinic: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Bannan,

Kamal,

Al Makishah

et al. 2024

The Saudi Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy of High-volume Evacuator in Aerosol Reduction: Truth or Myth? A Clinical and Microbiological Study

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Ultrafine particles exposure is associated with specific operative procedures in a multi-chair dental clinic

Ultrafine particles exposure is associated with specific operative procedures in a multi-chair dental clinic

Simulated and clinical aerosol spread in common periodontal aerosol-generating procedures

Reducing microbial airborne contamination and particulate matter using different oral suctions in dental clinic: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About