Question · asked by 1 review
Combination system (Isolite) vs Conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector): Reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic scaling / AGP
- Population
- People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
- Intervention
- Combination system (Isolite)
- Comparison
- Conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector)
- Outcome
- Reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic scaling / AGP
It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic… compared with saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) (very low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 100%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Combination system (Isolite) vs Saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) Reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic scaling / AGP · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting · After AGP It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic… compared with saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) (very low certainty). Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious… (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.35 [-0.99, 0.29] | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low |
Combination system (Isolite) vs Saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling / AGP · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting · During AGP It is very uncertain whether combination system (Isolite) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during… compared with saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) (very low certainty). Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious… (2020) · Cochrane All outcomes | MD -0.31 [-0.82, 0.20] | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2020-09 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.