RESUMO
Background: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, how to reduce the risk of spreading viruses and other microorganisms while performing aerosolgenerating procedures (AGPs) has become a challenging question within the dental and dental hygiene communities. The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of various mitigation methods used to reduce the risk of infection transmission during AGPs in dentistry. Methods: The authors searched 6 databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar-for relevant scientific evidence published between January 2012 and December 2022 to answer 6 research questions about the risk of transmission, methods, devices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) used to reduce contact with microbial pathogens and limit the spread of aerosols. Results: A total of 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The literature on the risk of infection transmission including SARS-CoV-2 between dental hygienists and their patients is limited. Although several mouthrinses are effective in reducing bacterial contaminations in aerosols, their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 is also limited. The combined use of eyewear, masks, and face shields is effective in preventing contamination of the facial and nasal region while performing AGPs. High-volume evacuation with or without an intraoral suction, low-volume evacuation, saliva ejector, and rubber dam (when appropriate) have shown effectiveness in reducing aerosol transmission beyond the generation site. Finally, the appropriate combination of ventilation and filtration in dental operatories is effective in limiting the spread of aerosols. Discussion and Conclusion: Aerosols produced during clinical procedures can pose a risk of infection transmission between dental hygienists and their patients. The implementation of practices supported by available evidence will ensure greater patient and provider safety in oral health settings. More studies in oral health clinical environments would shape future practices and protocols, ultimately to ensure the delivery of safe clinical care.
Contexte: Depuis l'éclosion de la COVID-19, la façon de réduire le risque de propagation de virus et d'autres microorganismes tout en effectuant des interventions générant des aérosols (IGA) est devenue un enjeu complexe au sein des communautés de la médecine dentaire et de l'hygiène dentaire. L'objectif de cet exposé de position est de résumer les données probantes de l'efficacité des diverses méthodes d'atténuation utilisées pour réduire le risque de transmission des infections pendant les IGA en médecine dentaire. Méthodes: Les auteurs ont effectué des recherches dans MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library et Google Scholar pour trouver des preuves scientifiques pertinentes publiées entre janvier 2012 et décembre 2022 afin de répondre à 6 questions de recherche sur le risque de transmission, les méthodes, les dispositifs et l'équipement de protection individuelle (EPI) utilisés pour réduire le contact avec les agents pathogènes microbiens et limiter la propagation des aérosols. Résultats: Au total, 78 études ont satisfait aux critères d'admissibilité. La documentation est limitée en ce qui concerne le risque de transmission des infections, y compris le SRAS-CoV-2, entre les hygiénistes dentaires et leurs patients. Bien que plusieurs rince-bouches soient efficaces pour réduire la contamination bactérienne dans les aérosols, leur efficacité contre le SRAS-CoV-2 est limitée. L'utilisation combinée de lunettes, de masques et d'écrans faciaux est efficace pour prévenir la contamination de la région faciale et nasale lors de l'exécution d'IGA. L'évacuation à volume élevé avec ou sans aspiration intraorale, l'évacuation à faible volume, l'aspirateur de salive et la digue dentaire en caoutchouc (le cas échéant) ont démontré une efficacité à réduire la transmission des aérosols au-delà du site de production. Enfin, la combinaison appropriée de ventilation et de filtration dans les salles de traitement dentaire permet de limiter efficacement la propagation des aérosols. Discussion et conclusion: Les aérosols produits lors des interventions cliniques peuvent présenter un risque de transmission des infections entre les hygiénistes dentaires et leurs patients. La mise en oeuvre de pratiques appuyées par les données probantes disponibles assurera une plus grande sécurité des patients et des prestataires dans les milieux de santé buccodentaire. Un plus grand nombre d'études dans les environnements cliniques de santé buccodentaire permettrait de façonner les pratiques et les protocoles futurs dans le but d'assurer la prestation sécuritaire des soins cliniques.
Assuntos
Aerossóis , COVID-19 , Higienistas Dentários , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/transmissão , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Canadá/epidemiologia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Betacoronavirus , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Controle de Infecções Dentárias/métodosRESUMO
Background Since the outbreak of COVID-19, how to reduce the risk of spreading viruses and other microorganisms while performing aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) has become a challenging question within the dental and dental hygiene communities. The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the existing evidence about the effectiveness of various mitigation methods used to reduce the risk of infection transmission during AGPs in dentistry.Methods The authors searched six databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, for relevant scientific evidence published in the last ten years (January 2012 to December 2022) to answer six research questions about the the aspects of risk of transmission, methods, devices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) used to reduce contact with microbial pathogens and limit the spread of aerosols.Results A total of 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. There was limited literature to indicate the risk of infection transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between dental hygienists and their patients. A number of mouthrinses are effective in reducing bacterial contaminations in aerosols; however, their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 was limited. The combined use of eyewear, masks, and face shields are effective for the prevention of contamination of the facial and nasal region, while performing AGPs. High volume evacuation with or without an intraoral suction, low volume evacuation, saliva ejector, and rubber dam (when appropriate) have shown effectiveness in reducing aerosol transmission beyond the generation site. Finally, the appropriate combination of ventilation and filtration in dental operatories are effective in limiting the spread of aerosols.Conclusion Aerosols produced during clinical procedures can potentially pose a risk of infection transmission between dental hygienists and their patients. The implementation of practices supported by available evidence are best practices to ensure patient and provider safety in oral health settings. More studies in dental clinical environment would shape future practices and protocols, ultimately to ensure safe clinical care delivery.
Assuntos
Aerossóis , COVID-19 , Higienistas Dentários , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional , Equipamento de Proteção Individual , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/transmissão , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Canadá , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos , Controle de Infecções Dentárias/métodos , Antissépticos Bucais/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Background and objective The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during nebulization is unclear. In this study, we aimed to address this issue. Methods Fugitive emissions of aerosolized saline during nebulization were observed using a standard jet nebulizer fitted with unfiltered and filtered mouthpieces connected via a mannequin to a breathing simulator. Fugitive emissions were observed by using a laser sheet and captured on high-definition video, and they were measured by using optical particle counters positioned where a potential caregiver may be administering nebulization and three other locations in the sagittal plane at various distances downstream of the mannequin. Results The use of a standard unfiltered mouthpiece resulted in significant emission of fugitive aerosols ahead of and above the mannequin (spread over 2 m in front). A mouthpiece with a filter-adaptor effectively suppressed the emissions, with only minor leakage from the nebulizer cup. Particle count measurements supported the visual observations, providing total particle count levels and aerosol concentration levels at the measurement locations. The levels decayed slowly with downstream distance. Conclusions The visualization described above captured the dispersion of emitted aerosols in the plane of the laser sheet, aligned with the sagittal plane. The particle count measurements provided temporal and spatial distributions of the aerosol concentration levels over the time and locations considered. However, the exhaled air and aerosolized droplets spread three-dimensionally in front of and above the mannequin. The results visually highlight the effectiveness of using a filtered mouthpiece in suppressing the fugitive aerosols and identify an approach for limiting the occupational exposure of healthcare workers to these emissions while administering nebulized therapies.
RESUMO
Luego del brote de COVID-19 en el mundo, en medio de una crisis sanitaria, la odontología como profesión de alto nivel de riesgo de contaminación se plantea un reto, para la restructuración de sus procedimientos. Al respecto, se han revisado diferentes enfoques de las guías internacionales con diferentes realidades y experiencias en el campo, llegando a recomendaciones para el diseño y uso del óptimo equipo de protección personal (EPP) en tiempos de escasez, minimizando los riesgos de contaminación. Sin embargo, la mayor parte de estas no están apoyadas con evidencia científica odontológica, mientras que se van desarrollando nuevos dispositivos, minimizando la exposición a procedimientos generadores de aerosoles (PGA) como barreras físicas.
After the outbreak of COVID-19 in the world, during a health crisis, dentistry as a profession with a high level of risk of contamination poses a challenge, for the restructuring of its procedures. In this regard, different approaches to international guidelines have been reviewed with diverse realities and experiences in the field, reaching recommendations for the design and use of optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) in times of scarcity, minimizing the risks of contamination. However, most of these are not supported by dental scientific evidence, while new devices are being developed, minimizing exposure to aerosol-generating procedures (PGA) as physical barriers.
RESUMO
Background: Airway management for patients with COVID-19 poses a significant infection risk to clinicians. As such, some providers have adopted the "COVID intubation box", a cuboid barrier which which separates the clinician from the airway. While this device has limitations, there is promising evidence on its effectiveness. Aim: To summarize the history, evidence, and limitations of the popular intubation box design. Furthermore, we share our modified design and experiences from airway simulations. Methods: Using our prototyping and validation facilities, our team designed and iteratively improved our device to arrive at a final design. The expert panel, consisting of anesthesiologists, infection control staff, and emergency clinicians, trialed the device using airway simulation mannequins and provided feedback. Results: Our final device features a dome shape, increased height, wider arm port diameter, additional side port for assistants, and drapes to reduce viral escape. Feedback from simulations was overall positive, especially noting that the height and arm port diameter facilitated arm motion within the box. The infection control team preferred the unique dome shape for safe disinfection. Conclusion: Our intubation box overcomes several challenges and criticisms of the popular intubation box. This device is an important harm reduction tool for clinicians during this COVID-19 pandemic.