RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Early studies during the COVID-19 pandemic suggested dental occupations were among the highest risk for exposure to SARs-CoV-2 because of multiple factors increasing exposure, including close proximity to unmasked patients and performance of aerosol-generating procedures. However, to date, few studies have investigated COVID-19 deaths in United States dental occupations, and compared COVID-19 deaths among healthcare occupations. METHODS: We analyzed 2020 mortality data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics' National Vital Statistics System. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death in relation to occupation in working-age decedents (≤65 years), after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and medical conditions associated with severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Dental occupations did not have significantly higher risk for COVID-19 death when compared to all other occupations combined. Among healthcare occupations with frequent, direct patient- or client interactions, LPNs and LVNs, and speech and language pathologists had significantly elevated adjusted ORs for COVID-19 death when compared to dentists, dental hygienists, or dental assistants. Similarly, nurse practitioners had significantly higher ORs for COVID-19 mortality than dentists or dental hygienists, and approached significance when compared to dental assistants. Conversely, massage therapists and other health diagnosing and treating practitioners had significantly lower adjusted ORs for COVID-19 death compared with dental occupations. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights potential differences in work-related transmission of SARs-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 deaths in healthcare occupations, and furthers a previously limited understanding of COVID-19 deaths in healthcare occupations in 2020, before COVID-19 vaccine availability. Our results indicate that dental occupations were not among the highest, nor lowest risk, healthcare occupations for COVID-19 deaths in 2020, despite their known risks of direct exposure.
RESUMO
Dental personnel are ranked among the highest risk occupations for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to their close proximity to the patient's mouth and many aerosol generating procedures encountered in dental practice. One method to reduce aerosols in dental settings is the use of intraoral evacuation systems. Intraoral evacuation systems are placed directly into a patient's mouth and maintain a dry field during procedures by capturing liquid and aerosols. Although multiple intraoral dental evacuation systems are commercially available, the efficacy of these systems is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of four dental evacuation systems at mitigating aerosol exposures during simulated ultrasonic scaling and crown preparation procedures. We conducted real-time respirable (PM4) and thoracic (PM10) aerosol sampling during ultrasonic scaling and crown preparation procedures while using four commercially available evacuation systems: a high-volume evacuator (HVE) and three alternative intraoral systems (A, B, C). Four trials were conducted for each system. Respirable and thoracic mass concentrations were measured during procedures at three locations including (1) near the breathing zone (BZ) of the dentist, (2) edge of the dental operatory room approximately 0.9 m away from the mannequin mouth, and (3) hallway supply cabinet located approximately 1.5 m away from the mannequin mouth. Respirable and thoracic mass concentrations measured during each procedure were compared with background concentrations measured in each respective location. Use of System A or HVE reduced thoracic (System A) and respirable (HVE) mass concentrations near the dentist's BZ to median background concentrations most often during the ultrasonic scaling procedure. During the crown preparation, use of System B or HVE reduced thoracic (System B) and respirable (HVE or System B) near the dentist's BZ to median background concentrations most often. Although some differences in efficacy were noted during each procedure and aerosol size fraction, the difference in median mass concentrations among evacuation systems was minimal, ranging from 0.01 to 1.48 µg/m3 across both procedures and aerosol size fractions.