SPATTER CONTAMINATION IN DENTAL PRACTICES – HOW CAN IT BE PREVENTED?

  • C. GRAETZ University of Kiel, Germany
  • Jule BIELFELDT University of Kiel, Germany
  • Anica TILLNER University of Kiel, Germany
  • Anna PLAUMANN University of Kiel, Germany
  • C. E. DÖRFER University of Kiel, Germany

Abstract

Infectious diseases endanger all dental personnel during treatment, especially when spatter and aerosols are produced. Therefore, there is a strong need for better infection control principles during all treatments. The purpose of this in-vitro pilot study was to measure the environmental spatter contamination through a fluorescence technique. Scaling was performed using different power-driven devices and high-volume evacuation combined with a newly developed cannula (PS), standard suction cannulas (STS) and saliva ejectors (CDS). Material and methods: One sonic (AIR) and two ultrasonic devices (TIG, VEC) were utilized to remove biofilm from 168 artificial teeth in a manikin head. Teeth were scaled for 120s supra- or subgingivally. The spatter contamination of an area of 1.5m2 around the manikin head was assessed. Results and conclusions: The contaminated area (%) was significantly different for the AIR (median [25th; 75th percentiles]: 2.5 [1.16; 6.05]) versus TIG (0.25 [0.18; 0.88]) and VEC (0.08 [0.06; 0.1]) (p < 0.001). Irrespective of the instrument, subgingival scaling led to a less contaminated area (0.18 [0.07; 1.05]) than supragingival scaling (0.34 [0.1; 2.24]) (p < 0.001). High-volume evacuation combined with STS (0.17 [0.07; 1.04]) and PS (0.18 [0.07; 1.14]) reduced the contamination similarly (p=0.302) and was more effective compared to CDS (1.01 [0.12-5.78]) (p<0.001; p=0.002). Beside the limitation of an in-vitro investigation, it can be conclude that only high-volume evacuation with an adequately calibrated cannula is capable of significantly reducing the amount of spatter contamination produced during power-driven scaling.

Author Biographies

C. GRAETZ, University of Kiel, Germany

School of Dental Medicine
Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology

Jule BIELFELDT, University of Kiel, Germany

School of Dental Medicine
Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology

Anica TILLNER, University of Kiel, Germany

School of Dental Medicine
Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology

Anna PLAUMANN, University of Kiel, Germany

School of Dental Medicine
Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology

C. E. DÖRFER, University of Kiel, Germany

School of Dental Medicine
Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology

References

1. Petersilka GJ, Ehmke B, Flemmig TF. Antimicrobial effects of mechanical debridement. Periodontol 2000 2002; 28: 56-71.
2. Westfelt E. Rationale of mechanical plaque control. J Clin Periodontol 1996; 23: 263-267.
3. Legnani P, Checchi L, Pelliccioni GA, D'Achille C. Atmospheric contamination during dental procedures. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 435-439.
4. Bentley CD, Burkhart NW, Crawford JJ. Evaluating spatter and aerosol contamination during dental procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 579-584.
5. Lu DP, Zambito RF. Aerosols and cross infection in dental practice--a historic view. Gen Dent 1981; 29: 136-142.
6. Leggat PA, Kedjarune U. Bacterial aerosols in the dental clinic: a review. Int Dent J 2001; 51: 39-44.
7. Szymanska J. Dental bioaerosol as an occupational hazard in a dentist's workplace. Ann Agric Environ Med 2007; 14: 203-207.
8. Gross KB, Overman PR, Cobb C, Brockmann S. Aerosol generation by two ultrasonic scalers and one sonic scaler. A comparative study. J Dent Hyg 1992; 66: 314-318.
9. Palakuru SK, Lakshman VK, Bhat KG. Microbiological analysis of oral samples for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by nested polymerase chain reaction in tuberculosis patients with periodontitis. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: 688-693.
10. Faecher RS, Thomas JE, Bender BS. Tuberculosis: a growing concern for dentistry? J Am Dent Assoc 1993; 124: 94-104.
11. Harrel SK, Barnes JB, Rivera-Hidalgo F. Reduction of aerosols produced by ultrasonic scalers. J Periodontol 1996; 67: 28-32.
12. Cottone JA, Molinari JA. State-of-the-art infection control in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1991; 122: 33-41.
13. Harrel SK. Clinical use of an aerosol-reduction device with an ultrasonic scaler. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1996; 17: 1185-1193; quiz 1194.
14. Serban D, Banu A, Serban C, Tuta-Sas I, Vlaicu B. Predictors of quantitative microbiological analysis of spatter and aerosolization during scaling. Rev Med Chir Soc Med Nat Iasi 2013; 117: 503-508.
15. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 1984; 11: 63-76.
16. Rühling A, Schlemme H, Konig J, Kocher T, Schwahn C, Plagmann HC. Learning root debridement with curettes and power-driven instruments. Part I: a training program to increase effectivity. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29: 622-629.
17. Kocher T, Plagmann HC. Heat propagation in dentin during instrumentation with different sonic scaler tips. Quintessence Int 1996; 27: 259-264.
18. Tunkel J, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF. A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29 Suppl 3: 72-81; discussion 90-71.
19. Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Landini G, Moses AJ. Advances in power driven pocket/root instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35: 22-28.
20. Larato DC, Ruskin PF, Martin A. Effect of an ultrasonic scaler on bacterial counts in air. J Periodontol 1967; 38: 550-554.
21. Walmsley AD. Potential hazards of the dental ultrasonic descaler. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988; 14: 15-20.
22. Dutil S, Meriaux A, de Latremoille MC, Lazure L, Barbeau J, Duchaine C. Measurement of airborne bacteria and endotoxin generated during dental cleaning. J Occup Environ Hyg 2009; 6: 121-130.
23. Day CJ, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry--a neglected menace? Dent Update 2006; 33: 601-602, 604-606.
24. Holbrook WP, Muir KF, Macphee IT, Ross PW. Bacteriological investigation of the aerosol from ultrasonic scalers. Br Dent J 1978; 144: 245-247.
25. Goldman HS, Hartman KS. Infectious diseases. Their disease, our unease: infectious diseases and dental practice. Va Dent J 1986; 63: 10-19.
26. Macher J, Willek K, Martinez KF, Morey PR, Martyny J. Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control. Cincinnati, Ohio: ACGIH, 1999.
27. Basu MK, Browne RM, Potts AJ, Harrington JM. A survey of aerosol-related symptoms in dental hygienists. J Soc Occup Med 1988; 38: 23-25.
28. Glenwright HD, Knibbs PJ, Burdon DW. Atmospheric contamination during use of an air polisher. Br Dent J 1985; 159: 294-297.
29. Bennett AM, Fulford MR, Walker JT, Bradshaw DJ, Martin MV, Marsh PD. Microbial aerosols in general dental practice. Br Dent J 2000; 189: 664-667.
30. Nejatidanesh F, Khosravi Z, Goroohi H, Badrian H, Savabi O. Risk of Contamination of Different Areas of Dentist's Face During Dental Practices. Int J Prev Med 2013; 4: 611-615.
31. Jacks ME. A laboratory comparison of evacuation devices on aerosol reduction. J Dent Hyg 2002; 76: 202-206.
32. Harrel SK, Barnes JB, Rivera-Hidalgo F. Aerosol reduction during air polishing. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 623-628.
33. Harrel SK. Airborne spread of disease--the implications for dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc 2004; 32: 901-906.
34. Timmerman MF, Menso L, Steinfort J, van Winkelhoff AJ, van der Weijden GA. Atmospheric contamination during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol 2004; 31: 458-462.
35. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B. The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 1998; 25: 158-163.
36. Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Rudiger S, Hickel R, Klaiber B. Working parameters of a sonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1: 55-60.
37. Harrel SK, Barnes JB, Rivera-Hidalgo F. Aerosol and splatter contamination from the operative site during ultrasonic scaling. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129: 1241-1249.
38. Barnes JB, Harrel SK, Rivera-Hidalgo F. Blood contamination of the aerosols produced by in vivo use of ultrasonic scalers. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 434-438.
39. Nicoll BK, Peters RJ. Heat generation during ultrasonic instrumentation of dentin as affected by different irrigation methods. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 884-888.
40. Plagmann HC. [Textbook of periodontology]. München; Wien: Hanser Verlag, 1998. [Book in German]
41. Reitemeier B, Jatzwauk L, Jesinghaus S, Reitemeier C, Neumann K. [Effective reduction of aerosol - possibilities and limitations]. ZMK 2010; 26: 662-673.
42. Checchi L, Matarasso S, Pirro P, D'Achille C. Topographical analysis of the facial areas most susceptible to infection with transmissible diseases in dentists. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991; 11: 164-172.
43. Gupta DG, Mitra DD, K PD et al. Comparison of Efficacy of Pre-Procedural Mouth Rinsing in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaler: A Pilot Study. J Periodontol 2013.
44. Veksler AE, Kayrouz GA, Newman MG. Reduction of salivary bacteria by pre-procedural rinses with chlorhexidine 0.12%. J Periodontol 1991; 62: 649-651.
45. Fine DH, Mendieta C, Barnett ML et al. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsing with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosols. J Periodontol 1992; 63: 821-824.
46. Drisko CL, Cochran DL, Blieden T et al. Position paper: sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodontology. J Periodontol 2000; 71: 1792-1801.
47. Fine DH, Furgang D, Korik I, Olshan A, Barnett ML, Vincent JW. Reduction of viable bacteria in dental aerosols by preprocedural rinsing with an antiseptic mouthrinse. Am J Dent 1993; 6: 219-221.
48. Feres M, Figueiredo LC, Faveri M, Stewart B, de Vizio W. The effectiveness of a preprocedural mouthrinse containing cetylpyridinium chloride in reducing bacteria in the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141: 415-422.
Published
2018-04-26