Effect of work environment and specialty degree of dentists on cross-infection control in COVID-19 pandemic

ABSTRACT

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the work environment and expertise/specialty degree of dentists on their behavior, awareness, and attitudes regarding cross-infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design:

The study population consisted of Turkish dentists who work in private clinics, public clinics and university hospitals. The demographic information of the participants, their awareness of the COVID-19 acute respiratory disease, and clinical measures taken against cross-infection were evaluated with an online survey. Between the 10^th and 20^th of November 2020, 2,400 surveys were e-mailed to dentists.

Results:

A total 454 professionals answered the survey. According to the results, 29.3% of the participants performed only urgent care during the pandemic period, whereas 59.9% of them performed both urgent and routine treatments. Among the responding dentists, 90.6% stated that they were worried about aerosol-generating dental procedures, but there was no differences between genders (p = 0.119). Most participants, especially specialists (p = 0.160), applied strict cross-infection control methods during the COVID-19 pandemic (77.2%). These dentists used personal protective equipment (PPE) at rates that varied between 75.5% and 98.4%. Nonetheless, the rate of PPE use was different between genders and degrees of expertise: women used PPE more frequently than men (p = 0.025), and specialists used PPE more often than the other dentists (p = 0.04). Finally, there was a weak positive correlation between the level of PPE use and expertise (r = 0.121; p = 0.010).

Conclusions:

Despite the overall knowledge of the participants regarding COVID-19 symptoms, transmission routes, and the guidelines needed to prevent the virus from spreading, the dental specialists followed infection control methods more strictly. Even though the participants were concerned about dental practices that create microbial aerosols during the pandemic period, they continued their clinical routines using high PPE levels and taking extra clinical precautions to avoid cross-infection.

Keywords:
COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Infection control; Dentists; Practice patterns; Attitude to health

Introduction

In late December 2019, several patients with viral pneumonia were epidemiologically associated with a seafood market in Wuhan, China. The identified coronavirus that caused the infections was designated as “2019 novel coronavirus” (COVID-19) using next-generation sequencing.¹,² The infection by COVID-19, confirmed by droplet transmission and humanto-human transmission, is a significant public health problem, with 88 million reported infection cases and over 1.9 million deaths globally.³,⁴ COVID-19 uses the angiotensinconverting enzyme II (ACE2), which is an enzyme and a cell entry receptor to invade the host cells. The typical clinical symptoms of infected patients are fever, dry cough, dyspnea, headache, and pneumonia. The progression of the disease may result in respiratory failure, pneumonia, alveolar damage, and even death.⁵

A.erosols are suspensions of liquid or solid particles containing all kinds of microorganisms and are responsible for the airborne transmission of microorganisms.⁶,⁷ Aerosols consist of small particles called droplet nuclei (1-5 μmm) or droplets (> 5 μmm). . Aerosols can contaminate surfaces in a range of one meter and form form a potential route of infection route in the lungs because [.1] they can penetrate the alveoli.⁷,⁸

Cross contamination is the spread of pathogens from one source to another through direct contact from patient-topatient contact, patient-to-clinical staff contact by droplet transmission. The conjunctival, nasal, or oral mucosa from infected people produces droplets and aerosols containing microorganisms.⁸,⁹ Dentists are at high risk of cross-contamination due to frequent direct or indirect contact with dental instruments and surfaces contaminated with aerosols, blood, and saliva.¹⁰ Aerosols containing microorganisms in the oral cavity are created when high-speed handpieces and air/water sprays are used in dental procedures. Aerosols¹¹,¹² emitted into the air from high-speed handpieces used during caries removal or composite resin polishing increase the crosscontamination risk for dentists. Tooth preparation, removal of old fillings, debonding or removal of orthodontic composite remnants, scaling with a cavitron, and oral prophylaxis are procedures that carry a cross-contamination risk.¹¹,¹³ However, the infectious character of aerosols produced in dental procedures depends on virulence dose, pathogenicity of the microorganism, and contaminated contents of the patient, such as plaque, blood, calculus, and saliva.¹⁴,¹⁵

According to the American Dental Association (ADA), the practice of the dental profession during the COVID-19 pandemic poses a unique challenge due to the high amount of aerosols and droplets produced, which are inevitable during routine dental procedures.¹⁶ Therefore, eeffective infection control strategies are needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 during dental procedures.⁹ For this purpose, the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the performance of additional infection prevention, control procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such extra clinical precautions, which should be applied to all patients and not only to those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases, can prevent the spread of microbial aerosols and the contamination of dental equipment and materials.¹⁷,¹⁸

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the work environment and expertise/specialty degree of dentists on their behavior, awareness, and attitudes regarding crossinfection control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Sample size The study population consisted of Turkish dentists who work in private and public clinics and university hospitals. The sample size required for the study was calculated based on the total number of dentists (34,045) in Turkey. With a 95% confidence interval, the power analysis estimated that 384 or more people should be involved . The Ethics Committee of the Istanbul Gelisim University approved the study protocol (ethical approval number: 2020/29).

Survey instrument The study questionnaire consisted of two parts and contained 20 closed-ended questions. The first part of the questionnaire aimed to learn the demographic characteristics of the participants (i.e., sex, age, work experience, workplace profile). The second part of the questionnaire aimed to evaluate the awareness of the participants about COVID-19 and clinical precautions against cross-infection based on the “COVID-19 infection control guidelines” published by the CDC.¹⁷ Experts previously examined the content adequacy of the questionnaire to evaluate the construct validity of the questions. As a first pilot evaluation, questions were sent to five specialists (two pediatric dentists, a restorative dentistry specialist, a statistician, and a general dentist). The questionnaire was revised according to the suggestions made by the experts. Two experts (a pediatric dentist and a restorative dentistry specialist) retested the questionnaire to check whether they were consistent with semantics and conceptual framework. After a language suitability review by a Turkish language expert, the questionnaire was created with Google Documents. . The e-mail announced that participation was voluntary and that the personal data would remain confidential. The study was designed and implemented under the Helsinki Declaration.

Statisticalanalysis Survey results were evaluated with descriptive statistics such as the number and percentage. The data were analyzed using IBM^® SPSS^® (version 24.0;IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). Mean, standard deviation, range, and frequency for variables were calculated. Pearson chi-square analysis was used for the crosstab of variables; the Spearman’s rank correlation test was used to evaluate correlation between gender, specialty, and attitudes of the dentists towards cross infection. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Between November 10^th and 20^th, 2020, 2,400 questionnaires were e-mailed to the dentists, and 454 of them returned their responses, indicating a response rate of 18.9%. The demographic data revealed that 41% of the study population were aged < 30 years, 39.2% were aged between 31-40 years, and 19.8% had > 40 years. A total of 67.8% of the participants were female (Table 1).

In terms of professional experience, 33.5% of the partici- pants had >10 years, 33.5% had 5-10 years, and 33% had <5 years of experience. A large proportion of participants (51.8%) were general dentists, followed by dental specialists (32.4%) and post-graduate students (15.6%).A total of 46% of the respondents worked in private clinics, 22.9% in public clinics, and 31.1% in university hospitals (Table 1).

Of all the respondents, 81.9% indicated that they followed the current developments regarding COVID-19, and 74.2% of the participants followed the guidelines and recommendations published by national or international authorities regarding the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 2). there was no statistically significant difference between the responses given by men and women (pp=0.374, p=0.974, respectively) or between specialist and other dentists (p=0.061, p=0.137, respectively). Around 5.7% of the participants had symptomatic COVID-19 infection, 2.2% experienced a non-symptomatic infection, 73.5% did not have the disease, and the remaining participants indicated that they were not sure whether they had it or not. (Table 2).

Most respondents knew that droplet inhalation (98.2%), nasal mucosa (78.6%), fecal-oral route (26.7%), eye mucosa (74.7%), saliva/blood (54.2%), and contaminated sharp instruments (20.3%) were COVID-19 transmission routes. The knowledge level of specialist dentists about the COVID-19 transmission routes was higher than others (p=0.012). There was no statistically significant difference between the answers provided by female/male participants regarding their knowledge of COVID-19 transmission routes t (p=0.258).

Only 5.1% of the participants stated that they did not perform dental peocedures during the pandemic, whereas 5.7% stated that they only performed oral examinations . Also, 29.3% of the professionals mentioned that they only performed urgent procedures. Most respondents (77.2%) followed strict cross-infection control methods, and no statistically significant difference among genders (p = 0.261) was observed regarding the cross-infection control methods . On the other hand, specialists performed cross-infection controls more strictly than the others did (p = 0.16).

Table 1
Description of the demographic and professional characteristics of participants.

Characteristics	N	(%)
Sex
Male	146	32.2
Female	308	67.8
Age
<30 yr	186	41
31-40 yr	178	39.2
>40 yr	90	19.8
Experience
0-5 yr	141	32
5-10 yr	128	29
<10 yr	172	39
Professional Qualification
General dental practitioner	235	51.8%
Specialist	147	32.4%
Postdoctoral student	71	15.6%
Place of Occupation
Private clinic	209	46%
Public hospital	104	46%
University hospital	141	31.1%

Table 2
Dentists' awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic and their answers about cross infection control measures.

Question	N	(%)
Do you follow the current developments regarding the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	372	81.9
No	78	17.2
Sometimes	4	0.9
Do you follow the guidelines and recommendations published by national or international authorities on the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	337	74.2
No	26	5.7
Sometimes	91	20
Did your patient evaluation criteria change during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes, I do not treat patients during the pandemic period.	23	5.1
Yes, I am just performing oral examination.	26	5.7
Yes, I only treat emergency patients.	133	29.3
No, I treat both emergency and routine patients	272	59.9
Have you ever been infected with Covid-19?
Yes, I had the infection symptomatically.	26	5.7
Yes, I had the infection asymptomatically.	10	2.2
No, I did not have the infection.	334	73.6
I am not sure	84	18.5
What are the transmission ways of Covid-19 virus? (multiple choice)
Droplet inhalation	446	98.2
Nasal mucosa	357	78.6
Fecal-oral route	121	26.7
Eye mucosa	339	74.7
Saliva, blood	246	54.2
Sharp tools	92	20.3
Fecal route	25	5.5
Do you adhere to strict cross infection control measures during the Covid-19 pandemic period?
Yes	344	77.1
No	78	17.5
Sometimes	24	5.4
Which of the personal protective equipment do you use during the Covid-19 pandemic? (multiple choice)
Glove	442	98.4
Surgical mask	409	91.1
N95 mask	382	85.1
Bonnet	340	75.5
Visor	411	91.5
Glasses	229	51
Protective clothing	387	86.2
Do you use an antiseptic mouthwash before dental procedures during the Covid-19 pandemic? If so, what is the content?
No I do not use.	224	50.1
Yes, with chlorhexidine gluconate	68	15.2
Yes, with hydrogen peroxide	102	22.8
Yes, with povidone-iodine content	78	17.4
Yes, with cetylpyridinium chloride	5	1.1
Did you take any extra precautions regarding dental unit care and unit water during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	145	32.4
No	221	49.4
Not quite sure	81	18.1
Did you take any extra precautions regarding the sterilization of hand and tools during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	133	29.8
No	258	57.8
Not quite sure	55	12.3
Are you worried about dental procedures that generate aerosol during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	405	90.6
No	30	6.7
Not quite sure	12	2.7
Which of the dental procedures that generates aerosol during the Covid-19 pandemic did you discontined? (multiple choice)
Oral scaling with cavitron	187	42.2
Restorative procedures	110	24.8
Endodontic procedures	74	16.7
Orthodontic treatments	74	16.7
Intraoral radiography	64	14.4
Asymptomatic tooth extraction	73	16.5
Esthetic dental procedures	165	37.2
None	207	46.7
Do you use minimally invasive techniques during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	277	63
No	120	27.3
Sometimes	43	9.8
Do you apply rubber-dam during dental procedures during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	50	11.2
No	340	76.4
Sometimes	55	12.4
Do you apply an extraoral vacuum during the dental procedure during the Covid-19 pandemic?
Yes	72	16.3
No	343	77.6
Sometimes	27	6.1
After the Covid-19 pandemic, what measures did you take regarding the clinic waiting room?
Phone call before appointment	193	43.4
Use of masks in the waiting room	413	92.8
Social distance measures in the waiting room	401	90.1
Availability of hand sanitizer in the waiting room	381	85.6
No magazines, food or drinks in the waiting room	295	66.3
Patients should come with minimum company	385	86.5
During the Covid-19 pandemic period, which ones do you apply regarding clinical assistant personnel?
Special training courss for staff	282	64.7
Monitoring the symptoms of clinical staff	239	54.8
Assistant personnel wear masks in rooms	303	69.5
Social distance measures in the rest rooms of the staff	303	69.5
Use of personal protective equipment	402	92.2

Personal protective equipment (PPE) usage rates varied from 75.5% to 98.4% among the participants. The rate of PPE usage was higher in females than in their male counterparts (p=0.025) andspecialists compared to other dentists (p=0.04). There was a weak positive correlation between the frequency of PPE use and expertise of the professionals (r=0.121, p=0.01). Among the respondents, 90.6% stated that they were worried about aerosol-generating dental procedures, and no statistical difference between genders was detected (p=0.119). A total of 46.7% of the participants reported that they did not suspend any dental procedures. Of these,11.3% used rubber-dam and 16.3% used an oral aerosol vacuum during dental procedures to prevent COVID-19 infections. Still, this difference was not statistically significant between genders (p=0.235) . The use rate of rubber-dam use by general dentists was statistically higher than of the other professionals (p=0.005) . Still there was no difference between participants in terms of using oral aerosol vacuum. About half of the respondents (49.9%) reported performing antiseptic mouthwashes on patients before the dental procedure. The use of hydrogen peroxide mouthwash by specialists was significantly higher (p=0.008), but no significant difference was observed for other types of mouthwashes(p> 0.05).

Extra precautions regarding the dental unit and sterilization of hand instruments were reported by 32.4% and 29.8% of the participants, respectively. Around 92.8% of the participants took precautions toward patients and their relatives/ companions in the waiting room and 92.2% took precautions toward the dental staff to prevent contamination..

Discussion

Dental procedures include the use of high-speed handpieces and air/water sprays and other processes that generate droplets and aerosols,¹⁹ dental clinics are among the highest risk environments in terms of cross contaminationDue to the microorganisms that survive in these particles, dental clinics are among the highest-risk environments for cross-contamination and COVID-19 infections.¹⁵,¹⁹ Therefore, all dental staff, especially dentists, face cross-infection risk caused by aerosols that can move deeper into the respiratory tract and even the the lungs during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁸,²⁰ The presence of COVID-19 in the saliva of infected patients poses an additional risk after an aerosol-forming dental procedure.²¹ A recent report suggests that coronaviruses associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome can survive in aerosols for at least three hours, even if their infectious potential is reduced.²² It is necessary to establish and implement crossinfection control criteria according to evidence-based principles during the COVID-19 pandemic to minimize the microbial load of the aerosols produced.⁸,¹⁹

This research was aimed to evaluate the effect of the expertise/specialty degree [.1] of dentists and their work environment on their behavior, awareness, and attitudes toward cross-infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this questionnaireare crucial for highlighting the transmission prevention strategies by professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The demographic characteristics of the participants in this study are shown in Table 1. According to Table 2, most participants (81.9%) followed the current developments related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the guidelines and recommendations published by national/international authorities (74.2%). Also, 5.7% of participants reported had symptomatic COVID-19 infection. According to gender and qualification variables, there was no significant difference in responses to these two questions (p>0.005). According to a study conducted in Lombardy, Italy, 4.43% of the participants had suffered one or more symptoms related to COVID-19 and only 2% of dentists were confident in avoiding infection.²³

Whereas the knowledge of the participants about droplet inhalation (98.2%), nasal mucosa (78.6%), eye mucosa (74.7%), and saliva/blood (54.2%) was acceptable, their knowledge of the fecal-oral route (26.7%) and contaminated sharp tools (20.3%) was insufficient to prevent COVID-19 infections( Table 2). The awareness of specialist dentists on this question was higher than of others (p=0.012). In a similar studies, the awareness of dentists about transmission routes was reported to be 71.82%.²³ and 90% .²⁴

According to Peng et al.⁹, as a dental professionals play important roles in preventing the transmission of COVID-19, they should take extra infection control measures during dental practice to prevent person-to-person transmission in the clinics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the first step of the infection control protocol recommended by ADA¹⁶ and CDC¹⁷ is to evaluate whether the patient is at an emergency situation or not. Elective and non-emergency procedures should be postponed, and dental treatments should be performed after considering the risk of COVID-19 transmission during the pandemic. According to Table 2, 59.9% of the respondents in this study performed both urgent and routine dental procedures. Since the pandemic has been presented in Turkey since March 2020, this may be the reason why many dentists return to routine dental procedures. As observed in Lombardy and Milan, the European regions where the pandemic caused most deaths, most dentists continued dental routine care by taking preventive measures.²³ In this study, most participants (77.2%) followed strict cross-infection control methods during the COVID-19 pandemic, and specialists follow them more strictly (p=0.16). Participants from a similar study.²⁴

According to ADA¹⁶ and CDC,¹⁷ the second step is to determine PPE competence to perform dental procedures.¹⁶ The use of PPE against saliva or blood in dental procedures is considered the most crucial preventive strategy as the second step in the infection control protocol.¹⁶,¹⁷,²⁵ Among the respondents, the use of disposable gloves (98.4%), surgical masks (91.1%), N95 masks (85.1%), disposable headsets (75.5%), face shields (91.5%), glasses/visors (51%), and protective suits (86.2%) were reported as effective methods to prevent COVID-19 infections(Table 2). It was found that the PPE use rate was statistically higher in females (p=0.025) and specialists (p=0.04), and there was a correlation between level of expertise and PPE use (r=0.121, p=0.01). The most commonly used PPE by Italian dentists were gloves (93.22%), surgical mask (74.56%), glasses/visor (91.28%), headsets (63.75%), and facial filters (58.84%).²³ . The PPE use rate among endodontists from the United States was reported to be as follows: N95 mask (83.1%), face shield (58.9%), protective suit (36.8%), and headset (55.2%).²⁶

Adopting professional precautions in dental practices that create microbial aerosols during the pandemic should be considered on a universally. . Standard precaution procedures should include more detailed and careful protection methods.¹⁹ According to Dawson et al.²⁰ aerosols produced by operating the rotary instruments can reach all levels of the respiratory tract. Therefore, aerosol-forming procedures, including the use of handpieces, air/water spray and ultrasonic scalers, should be avoided, or PPE during the pandemic to prevent infections.¹⁶,²⁰ According to a study that evaluated bacterial load in dental treatments, the amount of bacterial load in bioaerosols at a distance of 1.5 meter from the oral cavity of the patient was found to be higher than a 1 meter distance. Handpiece use significantly decreased contamination at all sampled distances from the oral cavity of the patient (average 970 CFU/m²/hour).¹⁸ According to the results obtained here, most of participants (90.6%) worried about aerosol generating dental procedures. Near 53.3% of participants suspended aerosol generating procedures, whereas 42.2%, 37.2%, and 24.8% of them stated they suspended oral scaling, aesthetic dental procedures and restorative procedures, respectively.

Other methods recommended to minimize droplet and aerosols spreading are to apply minimally invasive/atraumatic restorative techniques, a high-powered saliva ejector, and a rubber dam .¹⁷ The ubber-dam isolation can reduce airborne particles by up to 70% within a 3-feet diameter from the operational field.⁹,²⁷ The current survey results revealed that 11.3% and 16.3% of the participants prefered rubber-dam and oral aerosol vacuum during the dental procedures, respectively. General dentists used the rubber dam at a higher rate than the other dentists (p=0.005). Although 80% of endodontists from the United States stated concerns about dental procedures, 82% reported that they performed treatments during the pandemic. Most of them were usedusedrubber-dam, and 16.9% added oral aerosol vacuum to their practice.²⁶

Mouthwashes containing antimicrobials (i.e. chlorhexidine gluconate, essential oils, povidone-iodine or cetylpyridinium chloride) can be used to reduce COVID-19 viral load or to prevent contamination.¹⁷,²⁵ According to the obtained results, hydrogen peroxide was the preferred mouthwash by 22.8% of dentists, and most of especialits (38.7%) preferred hydrogen peroxide mouthwash (p=0.008). Koletsi et al.¹⁹ reported that using 0.2% tempered chlorhexidine (CHX) before routine ultrasonic scaling resulted in a significant reduction in aerosol-associated bacterial load. Peng et al.⁹ suggested that CHX may not effectively kill COVID-19 virus, because it is vulnerable to oxidation to use an oxidative mouthwash (H₂0₂) before the procedure.

During the pandemic, attention should be paid to the maintenance of dental units and clinical equipment. One should be aware of potential risks of contaminated water intake and colonization by pathogenic microbial species.²⁸ Due to the pandemic, using water filters in dental units, 3-6% hydrogen peroxide disinfection, CHX or specially designed biofilm removal systems is recommended.²⁹ Attention should also be paid to the standard maintenance of the dental unit and unit water system. The water quality of the clinic must follow the safe drinking water standard (<500 CFU/mL).³⁰ Extra-precaution regarding dental unit and sterilization of hand instruments was reported by 32.4% and 29.8% of the participants. However, routine cleaning and maintenance of autoclaves, air compressors, suction systems and aspirators, radiography equipment, amalgam mixers and other dental equipment should be meticulously done according to the manufacturer’s instructions to decrease cross-infection risks . It is also recommended to use suction systems and aspirators with high suction power and antiseptic agents applied to the water system of the dental units.²⁸,³⁰ Additionally, COVID-19 has been shown to remain active at room temperature from two hours to nine days and more infectious in 50% relative humidity than 30%. Therefore, maintaining a clean and dry environment in the clinic will help reduce COVID-19 persistence .⁹

Providing cross infection control training to dental staff, maintaining only the required sterile equipment for the dental procedure, maintaining all other materials away from possible contamination in a closed cabinet, and carefully sterilizing contaminated equipment after the procedure are other essential strategies to prevent COVID-19 infections.¹⁷ When participants were asked about the precautions they had taken regarding dental staff and administrative order, PPE use (92.2%), social distancing measures (69.5%) and providing special courses (64.7%) were reported. According to Table 2, the suggested precautionsby the participants to prevent COVID-19 transmission in the waiting rooms include contacting patients by phone before the appointment and questioning about their COVID-19 symptoms (43.3%), using face masks (92.8%), applying social distance (minimum distances of 6-feet) measures (90.1%), using 60% alcohol-based hand sanitizer (85.6%), removing objects frequently touched by clients, removing foods and beverages, and limiting the number of relatives/companions of patients (66.3%).

The limitations of our study can be listed as a middlesized sample, data collection limited to a short time period, and low level of e-mail responders due to the pandemic. New studies evaluating the theawareness and attitude of dentists towards the COVID-19 pandemic should be planned using larger samples with fewer variables.

Conclusion

Although the knowledge of participants about the symptoms, transmission routes and adherence to the infection prevention guidelines were sufficient, dental specialists must follow infection control methods more strictly. Participants were concerned about dental procedures that create microbial aerosols during the pandemic period, yet they continued to deliver dental care using high PPE levels and took extra clinical precautions to avoid cross infection infection by COVID-19. Higher adherence by healthcare professionals to highlevel cross-infection methods during dental procedures that generate microbial aerosols will undoubtedly reduce pandemic spreading

• Funding
  No funding

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Tan W, Zhao X, Ma X, et al. A Novel Coronavirus Genome Identified in a Cluster of Pneumonia Cases — Wuhan, China 2019-2020. China CDC Wkly. 2020;2(4):61-2. https://doi.org/10.46234/ccdcw2020.017
  » https://doi.org/10.46234/ccdcw2020.017
• ²
  Zhu N, Zhang D, Wang W, et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(8):727-33. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2001017
• ³
  Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, et al. Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet. 2020;395(10224):565-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8
• ⁴
  World Health Organization. Coronavirus situation report. 2000.
• ⁵
  Zhou P, Lou. Yang X, Wang XG, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579(7798):270-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7
• ⁶
  ASHRAE Board of Directors. ASHRAE Position Document on Infectious Aerosols. 2020.
• ⁷
  Barker J, Jones MV. The potential spread of infection caused by aerosol contamination of surfaces after flushing a domestic toilet. J Appl Microbiol. 2005;99(2):339-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02610.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02610.x
• ⁸
  Seto WH, Conly JM, Pessoa-Silva CL, Malik M, Eremin S. Infection prevention and control measures for acute respiratory infections in healthcare settings: an update. East Mediterr Heal J. 2013;19(1):39-47.
• ⁹
  Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, Cheng L, Zhou X, Ren B. Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. Int J Oral Sci. 2020:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-020-0075-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-020-0075-9
• ¹⁰
  Zemouri C, De Soet H, Crielaard W, Laheij A.A scoping review on bio-Aerosols in healthcare & the dental environment. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0178007. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178007
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178007
• ¹¹
  Ireland AJ, Moreno T, Price R. Airborne particles produced during enamel cleanup after removal of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;124(6):683-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00623-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00623-1
• ¹²
  Cokic SM, Ghosh M, Hoet P, Godderis L, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL. Cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of respirable fraction of composite dust on human bronchial cells. Dent Mater. 2020;36(2):270-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.009
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.11.009
• ¹³
  Joshi AA, Padhye AM, Gupta HS. Efficacy of Two Pre-Procedural Rinses at Two Different Temperatures in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced During Ultrasonic Scaling in a Dental Set-up - A Microbiological Study - PubMed. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2017;19(4):138-44.
• ¹⁴
  Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: A brief review of the literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135(4):429-37. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0207
  » https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0207
• ¹⁵
  Laheij AMGA, Kistler JO, Belibasakis GN, Va€limaa H, de Soet JJ. Healthcare-associated viral and bacterial infections in dentistry. J Oral Microbiol. 2012: 17659. https://doi.org/10.3402/jom.v4i0.17659
  » https://doi.org/10.3402/jom.v4i0.17659
• ¹⁶
  American Dental Association. ADA develops guidance on dental emergency, nonemergency care. 2000.
• ¹⁷
  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidance for Dental Settings. 2000.
• ¹⁸
  Rautemaa R, Nordberg A, Wuolijoki-Saaristo K, Meurman JH. Bacterial aerosols in dental practice - a potential hospital infection problem? J Hosp Infect. 2006;64(1):76-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.04.011
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.04.011
• ¹⁹
  Koletsi D, Belibasakis GN, Eliades T. Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Dent Res. 2020: 1228-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034520943574
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034520943574
• ²⁰
  Dawson M, Soro V, Dymock D, et al. Microbiological assessment of aerosol generated during debond of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;150(5):831-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.022
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.022
• ²¹
  Azzi L, Carcano G, Gianfagna F, et al. Saliva is a reliable tool to detect SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 2020;81(1):e45-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.005
• ²²
  van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, et al. Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(16):1564-7. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2004973
  » https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmc2004973
• ²³
  Cagetti MG, Cairoli JL, Senna A, Campus G. COVID-19 outbreak in North Italy: An overview on dentistry. A questionnaire survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113835
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113835
• ²⁴
  Al-Khalifa KS, AlSheikh R, Al-Swuailem AS, et al. Pandemic preparedness of dentists against coronavirus disease: A Saudi Arabian experience. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237630
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237630
• ²⁵
  Sethi K, Mamajiwala A, Mahale S, Raut C, Karde P. Comparative evaluation of the chlorhexidine and cinnamon extract as ultrasonic coolant for reduction of bacterial load in dental aerosols. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2019;23(3):226-33. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_517_18
  » https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_517_18
• ²⁶
  Martinho FC, Griffin IL. A Cross-sectional Survey on the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on the Clinical Practice of Endodontists across the United States. J Endod. 2021;47(1):28- 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.002
• ²⁷
  Samaranayake L, Reid J, Evans D. The efficacy of rubber dam isolation in reducing atmospheric bacterial contamination - PubMed. ASDC J Dent Child. 1989;56(6):442-4.
• ²⁸
  Pankhurst CL, Coulter WA. Do contaminated dental unit waterlines pose a risk of infection? J Dent. 2007: 712-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.06.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.06.002
• ²⁹
  Baudet A, Lizon J, Martrette JM, Camelot F, Florentin A, Clément C. Efficacy of BRS^® and Alpron^®/Bilpron^® disinfectants for dental unit waterlines: A six-year study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(8):2634. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082634
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082634
• ³⁰
  Mamajiwala A, Sethi K, Raut C, Karde P, Khedkar S. Comparative evaluation of chlorhexidine and cinnamon extract used in dental unit waterlines to reduce bacterial load in aerosols during ultrasonic scaling. Indian J Dent Res. 2018;29(6):749-54. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_571_17
  » https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_571_17

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 Oct 2021
• Date of issue
  2021

History

• Received
  5 Mar 2021
• Accepted
  5 May 2021
• Published
  31 May 2021