Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contact Us Login 
An Official Publication of the Indian Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathologists


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 59-65
 

Role of preprocedural rinse and high volume evacuator in reducing bacterial contamination in bioaerosols


1 Head of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Independent Dental Practitioner, Impressions Dental Car, Elegant Desire Building No 1, Coles Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore, India
2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, The Oxford Dental College, Bangalore, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, G Pulla Reddy Dental College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India

Date of Submission21-Jan-2015
Date of Acceptance23-Mar-2016
Date of Web Publication22-Apr-2016

Correspondence Address:
G Sreenath
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, G Pulla Reddy Dental College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-029X.180931

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 

Context: Microbial contamination, which occurs during dental procedures, has been a potential threat to dental professionals and individuals. There has been a growing concern over the role of bioaerosols in spread of various airborne infections and also to reduce the risk of bioaerosol contamination. Aims: This study was to analyze the number of colony forming units (CFUs) in bioaerosols generated during ultrasonic scaling procedure as well as to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine 0.12% (CHX) preprocedural mouth rinse and high volume evacuator (HVE) in minimizing the bioaerosol contamination.
Methods: About 45 individuals were divided into three Groups A, B and C. These groups underwent ultrasonic scaling before and after the use of CHX (0.12%), HVE and combination of CHX (0.12%) and HVE. Bioaerosols were collected on blood agar plates which were incubated at 37°C for 48 h, and the CFUs were counted with manual colony counting device. A comparison was also done between A versus B, B versus C and A versus C groups. Statistical Analysis Used: Student's t-test. Results: We found a significant reduction in the CFUs when CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse (P < 0), or HVE (P < 0.001) or combination of both CHX (0.12%) and HVE were employed (P < 0.001). Maximum reduction in CFUs was observed when CHX (0.12%) and HVE were used in combination as compared to their individual use. A moderate significance was seen between A versus C groups but not with B versus C groups and A versus B groups. Conclusion: From our study, we conclude that individual methods such as CHX (0.12%) and HVE were useful to reduce the dental bioaerosols; however, combination of both CHX (0.12%) and HVE is more efficient to reduce dental bioaerosols than individual method.


Keywords: Bioaerosols, chlorhexidine, colony forming units, high volume evacuator


How to cite this article:
Narayana T V, Mohanty L, Sreenath G, Vidhyadhari P. Role of preprocedural rinse and high volume evacuator in reducing bacterial contamination in bioaerosols. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol 2016;20:59-65

How to cite this URL:
Narayana T V, Mohanty L, Sreenath G, Vidhyadhari P. Role of preprocedural rinse and high volume evacuator in reducing bacterial contamination in bioaerosols. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 Jun 24];20:59-65. Available from: https://www.jomfp.in/text.asp?2016/20/1/59/180931



   Introduction Top


Spread of infection in the dental set-up is of major concern to the dental community mainly because it carries a possible risk of transmission of infectious agents and their potential effects on the health of the dental personnel and the individuals. [1] Many dental procedures that use mechanical instrumentations such as ultrasonic scalers, handpieces, air polishing device and air abrasion units are known to produce bioaerosols from the operating site. [2] Bioaerosols are defined as particles <50 μm in diameter containing microorganisms in saliva, nasopharyngeal secretions and blood; plaque that are small enough to stay airborne for an extended period of time before they settle down on the environmental surface or enter the respiratory tract. [1] To effectively minimize bioaerosol contamination, American Dental Association (ADA) and the center of disease control and prevention (CDC) have recommended the use of universal barrier techniques for all dental procedures. These include gloves, mouth mask, rubber dam and high volume evacuator (HVE). [3] Preprocedural rinse mainly chlorhexidine (CHX) in varying concentrations, (0.12% normally) are also being used to reduce the bacterial contamination before ultrasonic scaling and periodontal surgery. [4] Hence, it seemed prudent to evaluate the efficacy of simple and inexpensive methods such as CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE in reducing bacterial contamination in bioaerosols generated during ultrasonic scaling procedure in dental setup by assessing the colony forming units (CFUs) before and after their use.


   Subjects and methods Top


For this study, a good ventilated room measuring about 20 × 15 feet was selected; it was equipped with an autoclave and a single dental chair attached with an ultrasonic scaler and HVE. Before ultrasonic scaling procedure, the room was cleaned and fumigated with formaldehyde and potassium permanganate crystals for 2 days (48 h). Following fumigation, blood agar plates were kept for 10 min in the four corners and in the middle of the closed room to collect bioaerosol samples. After 10 min, agar plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 h to allow for the growth of bacteria. Following this, the culture plates were assessed for CFUs using manual colony counting device. Fumigation was repeated until there was a substantial reduction in contaminated bioaerosols in the room. The dental chair was disinfected with surface disinfectant (bacilol-25) and instruments such as mouth mirror, probe, kidney tray and scaler tips were sterilized in the autoclave.

Individuals were randomly selected for the study and medically compromised individuals were excluded from the study, they were evaluated for systemic diseases. EMS ultrasonic scaler was used and 5 min time was taken for oral prophylaxis of each quadrant.

A total of ninety bioaerosol samples were collected on the blood agar plates from 45 individuals in the department of periodontics during supragingival ultrasonic scaling procedure as shown in [Figure 1]. These individuals were divided into three Groups A, B and C each group comprising of15 individuals. Split mouth design technique was used to assess and compare the CFUs, without and with the use of 10 ml CHX 0.12% preprocedural rinse for 30 s and the use of HVE during supragingival scaling procedures. While using HVE, pressure was maintained according to the norms of confident dental chair, i.e. 30-40 psi kg/cm 2 [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Position of the blood agar plate in the fiberglass box during the procedure

Click here to view
Figure 2: Position of the high volume evacuator during procedure

Click here to view


Group A consists of 15 individuals with 1 st and 4 th quadrants undergoing supragingival scaling without preprocedural rinse (0.12% CHX), 2 nd and 3 rd quadrants undergoing supragingival scaling after preprocedural rinse with 0.12% CHX. The cultures obtained with samples from 1 and 4 quadrants are presented in [Figure 3] and those obtained with pre-procedural rinse with CHX are presented in [Figure 4].

Group B consists of 15 individuals with 1 st and 4 th quadrants undergoing supragingival scaling without HVE, 2 nd and 3 rd quadrants undergoing supragingival scaling with HVE. The cultures obtained with samples from 1 and 4 quadrants are presented in [Figure 5] and those obtained with the use of HVE are presented in [Figure 6]. Group C consists of 15 individuals with 1 st and 4 th quadrants undergoing supragingival scaling without preprocedural rinse (0.12% CHX) and HVE, 2 nd and 3 rd quadrants undergoing supragingival scaling with preprocedural rinse using 0.12% CHX and HVE. The cultures obtained with samples from 1 and 4 quadrants are presented in [Figure 7] and those obtained with pre-procedural rinse with CHX and HVE are presented in [Figure 8]. All the collected bioaerosols samples were cultured in the Department of Oral Pathology.
Figure 3: Colony forming units without the use of chlorhexidine (0.12%) preprocedural rinse

Click here to view
Figure 4: Reduction of colony forming units after the use of chlorhexidine (0.12%) preprocedural rinse

Click here to view
Figure 5: Colony forming units without the use of high volume evacuator

Click here to view
Figure 6: Reduction of colony forming units after the use of high volume evacuator

Click here to view
Figure 7: Colony forming units without the use of both chlorhexidine (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and high volume evacuator

Click here to view
Figure 8: Significant reduction of colony forming units with the use of chlorhexidine (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and high volume evacuator

Click here to view



   Results Top


In the Group A individuals, the efficacy of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse alone in reducing bioaerosol contamination during ultrasonic scaling procedure was assessed. Results showed that a regimen of 30s preprocedural rinse with 10 ml CHX (0.12%) before the ultrasonic scaling procedure significantly reduced the CFUs than when preprocedural rinse was not used [P < 0.001, [Table 1] and [Graph 1]. In Group B individuals who underwent ultrasonic scaling without and with the use of HVE, CFUs were significantly reduced when HVE was used compared to when HVE was not used [P < 0.0001, [Table 2] and [Graph 2]. In Group C individuals, CFUs were compared between without the use of CHX (0.12%) and HVE versus when a combination of both CHX (0.12%) and HVE was used during ultrasonic scaling procedure. CFUs were significantly reduced in individuals when treated with a combination of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE [P < 0.001, [Table 3] and [Graph 3].
Table 1: Comparison of Colony forming units from bioaerosols between without pre - procedural rinse and with pre - procedural rinse


Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of Colony forming units from bioaerosols between with and without the use of high volume evacuator


Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison of colony forming units from bioaerosols between with and without the use of high volume evacuator and rinse


Click here to view








Comparison of CFUs was also done between A versus B, B versus C and A versus C groups. Statistical significance was not found between A versus B groups (P = 0.135) and B versus C groups (P = 0.411); however, a moderate statistical significance was found between A versus C groups (P = 0.043) during ultrasonic scaling procedure. ANOVA is preferred to compare log CFUs between A, B and C groups.


   Discussion Top


Air contamination caused by different procedures carried out in the dental office has raised great concern and has prompted a continuous search for alternatives and methods to maintain the health of both dentists and individuals undergoing dental treatment. [5],[6]

A probable cause of infection dissemination to the dentists, auxiliary personnel and individuals is intimately related to the generation of particles, aerosols, gases and splatter during the dental procedures. [1] Therefore, the dental practitioners have been strongly recommended to put into practice the control of bioaerosols contamination in their routine infection control protocol. [2]

ADA and the CDC have recommended several guidelines to minimize bioaerosol contamination. Sterilization of instruments, treatment of dental unit water lines, universal barrier protection such as gloves, face masks, rubber dam, preprocedural rinse and HVE should be used to reduce airborne contamination during dental procedures. [2],[6] Use of expensive methods such as high-efficiency particulate air and ultraviolet chambers in the ventilation system have also been recommended. [7]

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of simple and inexpensive methods such as 0.12% CHX perprocedural rinse and HVE in reducing the quantity of bacterial contamination in bioaerosols generated during oral prophylaxis using ultrasonic scalers.

In the Group A individuals, the CFUs were reduced to certain extent with the use of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse alone [Table 1] and Graph 1]. This can be attributed to CHX (0.12%) being an effective antiseptic against free floating bacteria such as those found in the saliva and those loosely adhering to mucous membranes. [8]

Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse in reducing the bacterial contamination. [9] A study using a similar protocol during scaling procedures showed that a 2 min prerinse with CHX significantly reduced the number of CFUs. Fine et al. reported that there was a 94.1% reduction in CFUs with 20 ml CHX (0.12%) mouth rinse for 30s when compared with non-rinse control and the difference was statistically significant. Similarly, another study done using saliva samples showed that two consecutive 30s preprocedural rinsing with CHX (0.12%) had a profound effect on the bacterial flora of the oral cavity. [10],[11],[12]

CFUs were significantly reduced with the use of HVE in Group B individuals when compared to Group A individuals [Table 2] and Graph 2]. The above results of our study are comparable with the findings of Harrel et al. who also found that HVE was effective in minimizing the bioaerosol contamination during ultrasonic scaling. The HVE used in dentistry has a large opening about 8 mm or greater and is attached to an evacuation system that helps to remove a large volume of air up to 100 cubic feet of air per minute. [13],[14] These characteristics of HVE could also be the possible reason why HVE has shown to reduce contamination caused from operating site by more than 90%. [15],[16],[17] However, there are reports where only a narrow difference was observed when either HVE or conventional suction device (CDS) was used to reduce bioaerosol contamination. [18],[19]

In Group C individuals, CFUs were significantly reduced when treated with a combination of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE [Table 3] and Graph 3]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first ever study done where CFUs were assessed when a combination of CHX (0.12%) and HVE have been used and a significant reduction in CFUs was found.

Comparison of CFUs was also done between A versus B, B versus C and A versus C groups. Statistical significance was not found in the first two groups, whereas a moderate statistical significance was found between Groups A versus C during ultrasonic scaling procedure.

In certain circumstances due to lack of assistance, it may not be possible to use HVE in the dental settings. [1] In such situations use of preprocedural rinse with 0.12% CHX alone would be helpful in minimizing the bioaerosol contamination as has been seen in Group A individuals.

In our study, we have only assessed the role of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE in reducing contamination by aerobic bacteria in bioaerosols. Any bacteria that require special media or growth conditions such as mycobacteria or strict anaerobes that are common in periodontal pockets will not grow on the media used in this study. Furthermore, viruses such as rhinoviruses, influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus do not grow on the type of media used for bacteria and hence, these viral particles cannot be cultured. [1],[18] Further studies need to be done to investigate the role of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE in effectively reducing the contamination by these microorganisms.

While it is impossible to completely eliminate the risk posed by dental bioaerosols, it is possible to minimize the risk by using simple and inexpensive methods such as personal protection barriers such as mouth mask, gloves, eye gear; by using preprocedural CHX (0.12%) mouth rinse; [15],[18] and by using HVE. Unfortunately, many dental practitioners appear to use only the personal protection barrier as a single approach to reduce the risk of infection. [20] As we have observed in our study, a significant reduction in the CFUs when a combination of both CHX (0.12%) and HVE were used, we emphasize the need to use both CHX (0.12%) and HVE along with the personal protective barriers in routine dental infection control thereby minimizing any legal or regulatory risks that may exist in dental practice. [1],[20]


   Conclusion Top


The bioaerosols generated during dental procedures pose a potential risk for the spread of infections to dental personnel and individuals. The control of these contaminated bioaerosols has not been emphasized enough in dental infection control protocol.

Combination of both, CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE reduced bacterial contamination of bioaerosol more effectively than individual methods during ultrasonic scaling procedure. Moderate statistical significance was found in A group versus C group during ultrasonic scaling procedure. In some situations due to lack of assistance or infrastructure, use of HVE is difficult. In such situations use of CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse alone can be used to minimize the contaminated bioaerosols to a certain accepted levels.

We hereby emphasize the need to use a combination of both CHX (0.12%) preprocedural rinse and HVE along with the universal protective barriers in routine dental infection control in general dental practice. This in turn will help to reduce the risk of transmission of airborne infections to dental personnel and individuals in the dental setup.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: A brief review of the literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc 004;135:429-37.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Harrel SK. Airborne spread of disease - The implications for dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc 2004;32:901-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Barnes JB, Harrel SK, Rivera-Hidalgo F. Blood contamination of the aerosols produced by in vivo use of ultrasonic scalers. J Periodontol 998;69:434-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Walmsley AD, Walsh TF, Laird WRE, Williams AR. Effect of cavitational activity on the root surfaces of teeth during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:306-12.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Trenter SC, Walmsley AD. Ultrasonic dental scaler: Associated hazards. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30:95-101.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Leggat PA, Kedjarune U. Bacterial aerosols in the dental clinic: A review. Int Dent J 2001;51:39-44.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Al Maghlouth A, Al Yousef Y, Al Bagieh N. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of bacterial aerosols. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004;5:91-100.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Molinari JA. Infection control: Its evolution to the current standard precautions. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:569-74.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Muzzin KB, King TB, Berry CW. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of an aerosol reduction device for the air polisher. J Am Dent Assoc 999;130:1354-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Szymanska J. Dental bioaerosol as an occupational hazard in a dentist's workplace. Ann Agric Environ Med 2007;14:203-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Grenier D. Quantitative analysis of bacterial aerosols in two different dental clinic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1995;61:3165-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bharathi P, Harsh P, Shashidhar A, Bhatt M, Ballal M. Efficacy of pre-procedural rinsing in reducing aerosol contamination during dental rocedures. J Infect Prev 2009;10:190.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Azari MR, Ghadjari A, Nejad MR, Nairee NF. Airborne microbial contamination of dental units. Tanaffos 2008;7:54-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Dorothy A, Perry R. Aerosol management policy for powered scalers. CDHA J 2004;18:17-20.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Berlutti F, Testarelli L, Vaia F, De Luca M, Dolci G. Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water ines. J Dent 2003;31:105-10.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.
Akande OO, Alada AR, Aderinokun GA, Ige AO. Efficacy of different brands of mouth rinses on oral bacterial load count in healthy adults. Afr Biomed Res 2004;7:125-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Fine DH, Korik I, Furgang D, Myers R, Olshan A, Barnett ML, et al. Assessing pre-procedural subgingival irrigation and rinsing with an antiseptic mouthrinse to reduce bacteremia. J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:641-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Milejczak CB. Optimum travel distance of dental aerosols in the dental hygiene practice. ADHA 2005;79:1.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Timmerman MF, Menso L, Steinfort J, van Winkelhoff AJ, van der Weijden GA. Atmospheric contamination during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:458-62.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Fine DH, Mendieta C, Barnett ML, Furgang D, Meyers R, Olshan A, et al. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsing with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosols. J Periodontol 1992;63:821-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6], [Figure 7], [Figure 8]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 Assessment of dental personal protective equipment (PPE) and the relationship between manual dexterity and dissemination of aerosol and splatter during the COVID-19 pandemic
I-Hui Chen, Chia-Hua Lin, Yi-Syuan Liao, Pei-Wen Yang, Ya-Ting Jao, Tsung-En Chen, Je-Kang Du
Journal of Dental Sciences. 2022;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Efficacy of Aerosol Reduction Measures for Dental Aerosol Generating Procedures
Zixin He, Qiman Gao, Anna Henley, Zovinar Der Khatchadourian, Wendy Somerville, Michael Wiseman, Luc Mongeau, Faleh Tamimi
Aerosol Science and Technology. 2022; : 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Can preprocedural mouthrinses reduce SARS-CoV-2 load in dental aerosols?
Isabella Neme Ribeiro Reis, Guilherme Castro Lima Silva do Amaral, Aldrin André Huamán Mendoza, Yasmin Teixeira das Graças, Maria Cássia Mendes-Correa, Giuseppe Alexandre Romito, Claudio Mendes Pannuti
Medical Hypotheses. 2021; 146: 110436
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Dental periodontal procedures: a systematic review of contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in relation to COVID-19
Ilona G Johnson, Rhiannon J Jones, Jennifer E. Gallagher, William G. Wade, Waraf Al-Yaseen, Mark Robertson, Scott McGregor, Sukriti K. C, Nicola Innes, Rebecca Harris
BDJ Open. 2021; 7(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Zahnmedizinische Prophylaxe in Zeiten der COVID-19-Pandemie – eine kritische Analyse/Nachbetrachtung
Nadine Strafela-Bastendorf, Klaus-Dieter Bastendorf
ZWR - Das Deutsche Zahnärzteblatt. 2021; 130(01/02): 18
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Nursing strategies for COVID-19 prevention and control in a selected dental clinic
Jiali Zheng, Xiaojun Ni, Weijun Yuan, Lili Hou
International Nursing Review. 2021; 68(2): 189
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Infection control in dental health care during and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak
Catherine M. C. Volgenant, Ilona F. Persoon, Rolf A. G. Ruijter, J. J. (Hans) Soet
Oral Diseases. 2021; 27(S3): 674
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Aerosol generation and control in the dental operatory: An in vitro spectrometric study of typical clinical setups
Fruzsina Kun-Szabó, Dorottya Gheorghita, Tibor Ajtai, Szabolcs Hodovány, Zoltán Bozóki, Gábor Braunitzer, Márk Ádám Antal, Jing Zhao
PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(2): e0246543
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 The Saudi Infection Control Guidance for Re-opening Dental Services in Governmental and Private Sectors During Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic
Ali AlAhdal, Haila Al-Huraishi, Ahmad Almalag, Adel Alrusayes, Saud M Orfali
The Open Dentistry Journal. 2021; 15(1): 64
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
10 Effectiveness of Pre-procedural Mouth Rinses in Reducing Aerosol Contamination During Periodontal Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review
Shahida Mohd-Said, Tuti Ningseh Mohd-Dom, Nawal Suhaimi, Haslina Rani, Colman McGrath
Frontiers in Medicine. 2021; 8
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
11 Effects of Natural Ventilation and Saliva Standard Ejectors during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Quantitative Analysis of Aerosol Produced during Dental Procedures
Imena Rexhepi, Rocco Mangifesta, Manlio Santilli, Silvia Guri, Piero Di Carlo, Gianmaria D’Addazio, Sergio Caputi, Bruna Sinjari
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(14): 7472
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
12 Revealing Distress and Perceived Stress among Dentists at the Outset of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Factor Analytic Study
Kenneth S. Serota, Bálint Andó, Katalin Nagy, Ildikó Kovács
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(22): 11813
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
13 KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE OF PEDIATRIC DENTISTS IN TREATING THE CHILDREN DURING COVID -19
E. Rajendra Reddy, Srujana M P, M. Kiranmayi, S. Srikanth raju, M. Anupama, M. Anil Kumar
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. 2021; : 7
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
14 Endodontic management during COVID- 19 pandemic: A literature review and clinical recommendations
Sidhartha Shakti Prasad Behera, Vikas Jeph, Deepakkumar Sharma, Karamdeep Ahluwalia, Abhishek Patel
International Journal of Oral Health Dentistry. 2021; 6(4): 257
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
15 Possible transmission of Covid-19 & precautions in a dental setting: A review
Sonali Gholap, Amit Mani, Shubhangi Mani, Shivani Sachdeva, Jasleen Kaur Sodhi, Hiral Vora
IP International Journal of Periodontology and Implantology. 2021; 6(2): 98
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
16 Dental practice during the era of COVID-19
Harshul Sharma, Vaishali Khanduja
The Journal of Community Health Management. 2020; 7(4): 106
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
17 Bioaerosol in dental prosthodontics
Marija Jovanovic
Acta stomatologica Naissi. 2020; 36(82): 2106
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
18 Possible aerosol transmission of COVID-19 and special precautions in dentistry
Zi-yu Ge, Lu-ming Yang, Jia-jia Xia, Xiao-hui Fu, Yan-zhen Zhang
Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE B. 2020; 21(5): 361
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
19 Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
D. Koletsi, G.N. Belibasakis, T. Eliades
Journal of Dental Research. 2020; 99(11): 1228
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
20 Clinical endodontic management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review and clinical recommendations
A. A. Azim, J. Shabbir, Z. Khurshid, M. S. Zafar, H. M. Ghabbani, P. M. H. Dummer
International Endodontic Journal. 2020; 53(11): 1461
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
21 Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases
Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Prashanti Eachempati, Martha Paisi, Mona Nasser, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan, Jos H Verbeek
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
22 Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases
Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Prashanti Eachempati, Martha Paisi, Mona Nasser, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan, Jos H Verbeek
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; 2020(10)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
            

    

 
   Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
    Article in PDF (2,536 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Subjects and methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3895    
    Printed64    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded247    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 22    

Recommend this journal

© Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th Aug, 2007