Cochrane · intervention · CD013686

Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases

Kumbargere Nagraj, S, Eachempati, P, Paisi, M, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library

Oral HealthDental public health and special care2 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
39
current version
GRADE rated
23
No studies
9
Included studies
16
as reported
No studies 9 · 23.1%Ungraded 7 · 17.9%Very low 23 · 59%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationDental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP425 participants across 16 studies; aged 5 to 69 years; two studies recruited only children, nine studies recruited adults only, four did not report age; one study female only
InterventionAny method, procedure or policy that aimed to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics compared to any other method including no treatment or combination of methods. Categories: methods to prevent contaminated aerosols escaping from the mouth; local ventilation; general ventilation; decontamination of aerosols in the air; combination of methodsHigh-volume evacuation/HVE (n=5); Combination system/Isolite (n=3); Rubber dam (n=4); Air cleaning system (n=1); Laminar air flow with HEPA filter (n=1); Antimicrobial coolants - chlorhexidine, povidone iodine, cinnamon (n=2)
ComparisonAny other method including no treatment or combination of methodsNo HVE (n=5); Conventional dental suction/LVE (n=1); Saliva ejector (n=1); Rubber dam + HVE (n=1); HVE (n=1); No rubber dam (n=3); Cotton roll + HVE (n=1); No ACS (n=1); Without laminar flow or filter (n=1); Distilled water/control coolant (n=2); Antimicrobial coolant B (n=2)
OutcomesPrimary: Incidence of infection of dental staff or patients; Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment; Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols in the operative environment. Secondary: Costs for the interventions used; Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention to patients and dentistsReduction in level of contamination in aerosols measured as bacterial CFU (n=16); Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols (n=2 measured, not analyzable); Incidence of infection (n=0); Costs (n=0); Acceptability/feasibility (n=0)
Study designsRCTs and CCTs conducted in a dental environment, including randomized and pseudo-randomized (alternation) split-mouth studies; unit of randomization dental professionals, participants, quadrants (split-mouth), dental units or practices; excluded laboratory studies with mannequins not including real patientsRCT (n=11); CCT (n=5)
TimingNot reportedNot reported

Search date: 2020-09. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register

Questions and results

Show all 2 versions

Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods

Population: Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP
4 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Costs for the interventions used
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies
Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention to patients and dentists
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies
Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment
Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment: Not reported (row present in all Summary of findings tables)0 studiesNo studies
Incidence of infection of dental staff or patients
Rate of infection of dental staff or patients: Not reported (row present in all Summary of findings tables)0 studiesNo studies

High-volume evacuation (HVE) vs No HVE

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
5 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in contamination of aerosols on operator's face shield/mask (RCTs)
MD -15.71 [-46.37, 14.95]2 studies · 42 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) at more than 1 foot from oral cavity (CCT)
MD -13.56 [-23.18, -3.94]1 study · 30 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) at less than 1 foot from oral cavity (CCTs)
MD -50.19 [-109.71, 9.33]2 studies · 45 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling and air polishing at more than 1 foot from oral cavity (RCT)
MD -1.00 [-2.56, 0.56]1 study · 80 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling and air polishing at less than 1 foot (~30 cm) from oral cavity (RCTs)
MD -47.41 [-92.76, -2.06]3 studies · 122 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency

High-volume evacuation (HVE) vs Conventional dental suction (low-volume evacuator / saliva ejector)

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling at 40 cm from mouth
MD -2.30 [-5.32, 0.72]1 study · 6 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling at 150 cm from mouth
MD -2.20 [-14.01, 9.61]1 study · 6 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Combination system (Isolite) vs Saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator)

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in contamination of aerosols (CFU) after ultrasonic scaling / AGP
After AGP
MD -0.35 [-0.99, 0.29]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling / AGP
During AGP
MD -0.31 [-0.82, 0.20]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Combination system (Isolite) vs Rubber dam + HVE

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during water spray using high-speed handpiece
MD -125.20 [-174.02, -76.38]1 study · 1 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Combination system (Isolite) vs HVE

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during water spray using high-speed handpiece
MD -109.30 [-153.01, -65.59]1 study · 1 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Rubber dam vs No rubber dam

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
8 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at operator's occiput (RCT)
MD 0.77 [-0.46, 2.00]1 study · 47 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at 2 metres from mouth (RCT)
MD -11.70 [-15.82, -7.58]1 study · 10 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at operator's left ear (RCT)
MD 0.96 [-0.08, 2.00]1 study · 47 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at 1 metre from mouth (CCT)
MD -10.10 [-19.72, -0.48]1 study · 20 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at operator's submental region (RCT)
MD 0.52 [-0.11, 1.16]1 study · 47 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at 2 metres from mouth (CCT)
MD -2.80 [-4.65, -0.95]1 study · 20 participantsUngraded
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at operator's forehead (RCT)
MD 0.98 [-0.73, 2.70]1 study · 47 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at 1 metre from mouth (RCT)
MD -16.20 [-19.36, -13.04]1 study · 10 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Rubber dam + HVE vs Cotton roll + HVE

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at dental unit light
MD -12.70 [-12.85, -12.55]1 study · 21 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during restorative procedures at participant's chest
MD -251.00 [-267.95, -234.05]1 study · 21 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Air cleaning system (ACS) vs No air cleaning system

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling
MD -32.40 [-51.55, -13.25]1 study · 2 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during cavity preparation
MD -66.70 [-120.15, -13.25]1 study · 2 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Laminar air flow with HEPA filter vs Without laminar flow or filter

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Reyniers slit sampler 30 inches (76 cm) from floor
MD -319.14 [-385.60, -252.68]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU per cubic feet/min/patient) using Andersen cascade sampler 20-30 cm from mouth
MD -483.56 [-550.02, -417.10]1 study · 50 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Chlorhexidine coolant vs Distilled water coolant

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
3 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine coolant vs distilled water during ultrasonic scaling
MD -124.00 [-135.78, -112.22]1 study · 20 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): povidone iodine coolant vs distilled water during ultrasonic scaling
MD -656.45 [-672.74, -640.16]1 study · 40 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): cinnamon extract coolant vs distilled water during ultrasonic scaling
MD -644.55 [-668.70, -620.40]1 study · 40 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

Antimicrobial coolant A (chlorhexidine) vs Antimicrobial coolant B (cinnamon extract)

Population: People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting
2 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine vs cinnamon extract coolant during ultrasonic scaling
MD -11.90 [-35.88, 12.08]1 study · 40 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine vs povidone iodine coolant during ultrasonic scaling
MD -59.30 [-64.16, -54.44]1 study · 20 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision

General ventilation (e.g. natural ventilation, exhaust fans, opening windows) vs No general ventilation / standard operatory

Population: Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcome NR
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies

Ionisation (ionic air purifier) vs No ionisation / standard operatory

Population: Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcome NR
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies

Ozonisation vs No ozonisation / standard operatory

Population: Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcome NR
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies

Ultraviolet (UV) light air decontamination vs No UV light / standard operatory

Population: Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcome NR
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies

Fumigation or fogging vs No fumigation or fogging / standard operatory

Population: Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental aide or dental trainee) and their patients undergoing a dental AGP
1 question
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Outcome NR
no estimate extracted0 studiesNo studies