The International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD) guidelines for prevention of traumatic dental injuries: Part 2: Primary prevention of dental trauma across the life course.

The Guidelines for Prevention of Traumatic Dental Injuries were reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) and the Academy for Sports Dentistry (ASD).

Dental aerosol-producing treatments: Comparison of contamination patterns of face shields and surgical masks.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, dental face shields were recommended to protect the eyes. This study aimed to examine to what extent face shield and mask contamination differ when a pre-procedural mouth rinsing with Chlorhexidine (CHX) is conducted before treatment. In this prospective, randomized study, three groups of subjects were formed (rinsing with 0.1% CHX, water, or no rinsing (control) before aerosol-producing treatments). After each of the 301 treatments, the practitioner's face shield was swabbed with eSwab and the mask was brought into contact with agar plates. Sampling was done from the exterior surface only. Samples were cultured for 48 h at 35 °C under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Bacteria were classified by phenotypic characteristics, biochemical test methods, and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Colony-forming units were counted and mean values were compared (WSR, H-test, U-test, p < 0.05). Within each subject group, face shields showed significantly more contamination than surgical masks (control group: 350 CFU, 50 CFU; intervention water: 270 CFU, 40 CFU; intervention CHX: 250 CFU, 30 CFU). Comparison of face shields of the different subject groups did not reveal any statistically significant differences. However, CHX resulted in a statistically significant bacterial reduction on surgical masks compared to the water and control group (control: 50 CFU, intervention water: 40 CFU, intervention CHX: 30 CFU). Contamination of face shields and surgical masks was highest in the control group, followed by the water group, and lowest in the intervention group with CHX. Streptococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. dominated, representing the oral and cutaneous flora. Contamination of masks worn with or without face shields did not differ. Presumably, face shields intercept first splashes and droplets, while the masks were mainly exposed to bioaerosol mist. Consequently, face shields protect the facial region and surroundings from splashes and droplets, but not the mask itself. A pre-procedural mouth rinse with CHX had no statistically significant reducing effect on contamination of the face shield, but a statistically significant reducing effect was observed on contamination of the mask.

Electron beam technology for Re-processing of personal protective equipment.

Beginning with the outbreak of COVID-19 at the dawn of 2020, the continuing spread of the pandemic has challenged the healthcare market and the supply chain of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) around the world. Moreover, the emergence of the variants of COVID-19 occurring in waves threatens the sufficient supply of PPE. Among the various types of PPE, N95 Respirators, surgical masks, and medical gowns are the most consumed and thus have a high potential for a serious shortage during such emergencies. Considering the unanticipated demand for PPE during a pandemic, re-processing of used PPE is one approach to continue to protect the health of first responders and healthcare personnel. This paper evaluates the viability and efficacy of using FDA-approved electron beam (eBeam) sterilization technology (ISO 11137) to re-process used PPE. PPEs including 3M N95 Respirators, Proxima Sirus gowns, and face shields were eBeam irradiated in different media (air, argon) over a dose range of 0-200 kGy. Several tests were then performed to examine surface properties, mechanical properties, functionality performance, discoloration phenomenon, and liquid barrier performance. The results show a reduction of filtration efficiency to about 63.6% in the N95 Respirator; however, charge regeneration may improve the re-processed efficiency. Additionally, mechanical degradation was observed in Proxima Sirus gown with increasing dose up to 100 kGy. However, no mechanical degradation was observed in the face shields after 10 times donning and doffing. Apart from the face shield, N95 Respirators and Proxima Sirus gown both show significant mechanical degradation with ebeam dose over sterilization doses (>25 kGy), indicating that eBeam technology is not appropriate for the re-processing these PPEs.

Mitigation effect of face shield to reduce SARS-CoV-2 airborne transmission risk: Preliminary simulations based on computed tomography.

We aimed to develop a model to quantitatively assess the potential effectiveness of face shield (visor) in reducing airborne transmission risk of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 during the current COVID-19 pandemic using the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method. The studies with and without face shield in both an infected and healthy person have been considered in indoor environment simulation. In addition to the influence of the face shield and the synchronization of the breathing process while using the device, we also simulated the effect of small air movements on the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate (outdoor environment simulation). The contact with infectious particles in the case without a face shield was 12-20 s (s), in the presence of at least one person who was positive for SARS-CoV-2. If the infected person wore a face shield, no contact with contaminated air was observed during the entire simulation time (80 s). The time of contact with contaminated air (infection time) decreases to about 11 s when the surrounding air is still and begins to move at a low speed. Qualitative differences between simulations performed on the patients with and without the face shield are clearly visible. The maximum prevention of contagion is probably a consequence of wearing a face shield by an infected person. Our results suggest that it is possible to determine contact with air contaminated by SARS-CoV-2 using the CFD method under realistic conditions for virtually any situation and configuration. The proposed method is probably the fastest and most reliable among those based on CFD-based techniques.

Execution and viable applications of face shield "a safeguard" against viral infections of cross-protection studies: A comprehensive review.

Face shield are the unmistakable plastic gatekeepers secures eyes and face, simpler to wear and a group of specialists state face shields may supplant masks as an increasingly agreeable and progressively successful obstacle to COVID-19. Face shields are useful in stopping respiratory droplets from speading from the wearer to others. The droplets, which come into contact with the shield, are quickly spread over a large area, both transversely and vertically, over the shield, but with a shrinking concentration of droplets, as opposed to face masks, which appear to slide under the nose of the wearer or, worse, collapse entirely off the shield. Hence, a face- shield can be considered as personal protective equipment (PPE), which is a first line of resistance, utilized by the clinicians and forefront health workers for protection against the infectious body fluid and aerosols. Face-shields are mainly fabricated using polycarbonate material, because of their excellent optical transparency in UVA-visible-IR spectrum and mechanical properties. The goal of this article is to provide researchers working in the same area, as well as health and industrial staff, with a detailed analysis of the usage of face shields against bioaerosols and the need for personal security. The reviews main focus on the background of the face shield, provide assistance in the selection, its design and structure, applications, advantages and disadvantages. Lastly, people's view about the usage of face shield as it becomes an essential part of human beings like an accomplice during this current pandemic situation.

Aerosol and spatter mitigation in dentistry: Analysis of the effectiveness of 13 setups.

OBJECTIVES: The current study aims to investigate the aerosol and spatter mitigation quality of 13 dry-field isolation methods in a simulated setup that replicates real-life work scenarios encountered in dental practices. METHODS: A crown preparation on a manikin was performed on tooth number 30 and repeated five times for each setup to simulate a patient under care. Aerosol, environmental, and operator face shield spatter, and sound intensity was measured. Generalized linear mixed models were used, and posthoc pairwise comparisons were performed to compare least-squares means when appropriate using a Tukey adjustment. RESULTS: All tested setups showed some environmental spatter formation; however, these were able to control most (and in some cases all) spatter on the operator face shield. All methods resulted in excellent aerosol mitigation when a second line of high-volume evacuation (HVE) was added to the device setup. However, in most setups, total sound levels exceeded 85 dB, posing a concern for prolonged noise exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The Prototype device and four other tested setups with secondary HVE addition completely eliminated aerosol creation as tested. Spatter of the Face Shield was best eliminated using the Prototype device. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the dental community has at its disposal equipment that can effectively mitigate aerosol and spatter.

Antimicrobial Face Shield: Next Generation of Facial Protective Equipment against SARS-CoV-2 and Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.

Transparent materials used for facial protection equipment provide protection against microbial infections caused by viruses and bacteria, including multidrug-resistant strains. However, transparent materials used for this type of application are made of materials that do not possess antimicrobial activity. They just avoid direct contact between the person and the biological agent. Therefore, healthy people can become infected through contact of the contaminated material surfaces and this equipment constitute an increasing source of infectious biological waste. Furthermore, infected people can transmit microbial infections easily because the protective equipment do not inactivate the microbial load generated while breathing, sneezing or coughing. In this regard, the goal of this work consisted of fabricating a transparent face shield with intrinsic antimicrobial activity that could provide extra-protection against infectious agents and reduce the generation of infectious waste. Thus, a single-use transparent antimicrobial face shield composed of polyethylene terephthalate and an antimicrobial coating of benzalkonium chloride has been developed for the next generation of facial protective equipment. The antimicrobial coating was analyzed by atomic force microscopy and field emission scanning electron microscopy with elemental analysis. This is the first facial transparent protective material capable of inactivating enveloped viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in less than one minute of contact, and the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Bacterial infections contribute to severe pneumonia associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their resistance to antibiotics is increasing. Our extra protective broad-spectrum antimicrobial composite material could also be applied for the fabrication of other facial protective tools such as such as goggles, helmets, plastic masks and space separation screens used for counters or vehicles. This low-cost technology would be very useful to combat the current pandemic and protect health care workers from multidrug-resistant infections in developed and underdeveloped countries.

Improving protection from bioaerosol exposure during postoperative patient interaction in the COVID-19 era, a quality improvement study.

PURPOSE: During patient transport from operating room to post-operative recovery area, anesthesia staff are at increased risk of particle aerosolization from patients despite wearing face shields. Current single-use face shields do not provide anesthesia staff from adequate protection from bioaerosolized particles expired during a patient's cough, particularly during transfer from the operating room to the post-anesthesia recovery unit. In this study, we compare the efficacy of single-use face shield currently available at our institution to a newly designed face shield that provides better protection while still maintaining cost-effectiveness and the ease-of-use of a disposable device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient actor, simulated movements from a patient post-procedure, during transport from operating room to postoperative recovery area. Patterns of exposure of bioaerosolized particles produced from a cough between different face shields was evaluated using fluorescein dye. MAIN RESULTS: More extensive coverage of the lower face, as provided by the Enhanced Protection Face Shield, offers improved droplet protection from bioaerosolized particles emitted from a cough. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer from the operating room to the post-operative recovery unit is a hands-on process and involves managing multiple aspects of patient care physically. Current single-use face shields are convenient and cost-effective, but do not provide adequate protection from droplet aerosolization by patients during transfer. Other masks that provide adequate coverage are costly and are not designed to be single-use. A single-use disposable face shield that offers improved coverage of the lower face provides improved protection for anesthesia staff while maintaining cost-effectiveness, ease-of-use, and infection control.

Adapting in the COVID-19 Era.

How to cite this article: Papathanakos G, Andrianopoulos I, Papathanasiou A, Lepida D, Koulouras V. Adapting in the COVID-19 Era. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(12):1286-1287.

Risk of Bacterial Exposure to the Anesthesiologist's Face During Intubation and Extubation.

Introduction: Anesthesiologists are exposed to the risk of infection from various secretions or droplets from the respiratory tract of patients. We aimed to determine bacterial exposure to anesthesiologists' faces during endotracheal intubation and extubation. Methods: Six resident anesthesiologists performed 66 intubation and 66 extubation procedures in patients undergoing elective otorhinolaryngology surgeries. Sampling was performed by swabbing the face shields twice in an overlapping slalom pattern, before and after each procedure. Samples for pre-intubation and pre-extubation were collected immediately after wearing the face shield at the time of anesthesia induction and at the end of the surgery, respectively. Post-intubation samples were collected after the injection of anesthetic drugs, positive pressure mask ventilation, endotracheal intubation, and confirmation of intubation success. Post-extubation samples were collected after endotracheal tube suction, oral suction, extubation, and confirmation of spontaneous breathing and stable vital signs. All swabs were cultured for 48 h, and bacterial growth was confirmed by colony forming unit (CFU) count. Results: There was no bacterial growth in either pre- or post-intubation bacterial cultures. In contrast, while there was no bacterial growth in pre-extubation samples, 15.2% of post-extubation samples were CFU+ (0/66 [0%] vs 10/66 [15.2%], p=0.001). All the CFU+ samples belonged to 47 patients with post-extubation coughing, and the CFU count was correlated with the number of coughing episodes during the process of extubation (P < 0.01, correlation coefficient= 0.403). Conclusion: The current study shows the actual chance of bacterial exposure to the anesthesiologist's face during the patient awakening process after general anesthesia. Given the correlation between the CFU count and the number of coughing episodes, we recommend anesthesiologists to use appropriate facial protection equipment during this procedure.

Evaluation of Face Shields, Goggles, and Safety Glasses as a Virus Transmission Control Measure to Protect the Wearer Against Cough Droplets.

Face shields (also referred to as visors), goggles and safety glasses have been worn during the COVID-19 pandemic as one measure to control transmission of the virus. However, their effectiveness in controlling facial exposure to cough droplets is not well established and standard tests for evaluating eye protection for this application are limited. A method was developed to evaluate face shields, goggles, and safety glasses as a control measure to protect the wearer against cough droplets. The method uses a semi-quantitative assessment of facial droplet deposition. A cough simulator was developed to generate droplets comparable to those from a human cough. The droplets consisted of a UV fluorescent marker (fluorescein) in water. Fourteen face shields, four pairs of goggles and one pair of safety glasses were evaluated by mounting them on two different sizes of breathing manikin head and challenging them with the simulated cough. The manikin head was positioned in seven orientations relative to the cough simulator to represent various potential occupational exposure scenarios, for example, a nurse standing over a patient. Droplet deposition in the eyes, nose and mouth regions were visualised following three 'coughs'. Face shields, goggles, and safety glasses reduced, but did not eliminate exposure to the wearer from droplets such as those produced by a human cough. The level of protection differed based on the design of the personal protective equipment and the relative orientation of the wearer to the cough. For example, face shields, and goggles offered the greatest protection when a cough challenge was face on or from above and the least protection when a cough challenge was from below. Face shields were also evaluated as source control to protect others from the wearer. Results suggested that if a coughing person wears a face shield, it can provide some protection from cough droplets to those standing directly in front of the wearer.

Design and fabrication of a biodegradable face shield by using cleaner technologies for the protection of direct splash and airborne pathogens during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Due to global supply chain disruptions and high demand for personal protective equipment (PPE), the rapidly expanding COVID-19 crisis left millions of front-line fighters unprotected. The disposal of PPE in the environment caused significant environmental pollution. Hence, indigenous initiatives have been taken to fabricate antiviral and biodegradable face shields with the help of neoteric and cleaner technologies. This paper describes a novel endeavor to design, manufacture, and performance analysis of a face shield made by plastic injection molding and LASER Cutting. Because of the requirement of permanent wear, the face shield's ergonomic design is considered low weight and easy head fixation, alongside high production ability. Here, face shield frames are made with lightweight, biodegradable plastic called Poly Lactic Acid (PLA), whereas an optical grade PLA sheet is used as the visor for better clarity. Visors PLA Sheet is coated with Nano-Silver disinfectant spray to incorporate antiviral properties to the Faceshield. Partially circumferential adjustable elastic straps are used for comfortable head fixation. To evaluate the product, clinical fit tests along with statistical survey were conducted, and the feedback from the end-users on comfort (41% Excellent, 30% Good, 26% Average and 3% Poor), clear view (33% Excellent, 38% Good, 24% Average, and 5% Poor), design features (43% Excellent, 35% Good, and 22% Average), simplicity of installation and disassembly (29% Excellent, 33% Good, and 38% Average), and ease of wearing/removing (45% Excellent, 40% Good, and 15%Average) are encouraging.

Frequency and Difficulty in the Usage of Face Shields Among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons During the COVID-19 Era: An Online Survey.

Aim: During the COVID-19 era, personal protective equipment (PPE) has become a necessary part of surgeons' routines, and face shields are considered an additional barrier to prevent disease transmission via aerosols. This study aimed to evaluate how often oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFS) use face shields and the challenges they face while using them. Methods: An online survey consisting of fourteen questions was distributed to OMFS, and the responses were collected and analyzed using the chi-square test to determine any associations between categorical variables. A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Out of the 310 OMFS who responded to the survey (181 males, 129 females, 235 residents, 10 fellows, and 65 practitioners), 42.9% (133/310) and 39.4% (122/310) reported using face shields for minor and major surgical procedures, respectively. The majority of the respondents (74.1%, 230/310) reported decreased efficiency while using a face shield. Reasons for non-compliance included vision-related issues, headache, difficulties with disinfection, and ergonomic factors. Conclusion: Based on the survey results, the regular use of face shields by OMFS was less frequent, and almost three-fourths of the surgeons found it challenging to use due to various reasons. The reduced compliance with face shield usage highlights the need for more ergonomic face shields to improve compliance.

Design and manufacture of one-size-fits-all healthcare face shields for the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a shortage of personal protective equipment, PPE, which resulted in non-certified PPE being used by healthcare staffs. These would not provide the appropriate protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Together with the local NHS Trust (University Hospitals of Derby and Burton (UHDB) NHS Foundation Trust) and a local small and medium enterprise (SME), Riverside Medical Packaging Ltd, the University of Derby (UoD) developed test protocols for PPE with a one-size-fits-all concept. Building on best practice in reviewing the literature and current design requirements, key design parameters were identified such as a minimum strap width and comfort level for healthcare related Face Shield. Two strap headbands made from fabric and elastomer with linear stiffness of 44.1 ± 0.3 N/m and 149.1 ± 3.1 N/m respectively were tested with respect to fit and comfort on small and large arc-shaped models. There was an exponential change in pressure from the side to the middle of the strap headbands. The high stiffness of the elastomer in a radial set-up influenced the pressure exerted on a wearer's head when the elastomer strap was used. Meanwhile the coefficient of friction between the fabric strap and arc-shaped model influenced the pressure exerted when a fabric strap was used. The ergonomics of the designed Face Shields supported the one-size-fits-all concept, whereby various gender and head circumferences were considered. The findings in this paper will promote new standards in the design of PPE with a one-size-fits-all target.

The effect of clinical face shields on aerosolized particle exposure.

Background: Face shields protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from fluid and large droplet contamination. Their effect on smaller aerosolized particles is unknown. Materials & methods: An ultrasonic atomizer was used to simulate particle sizes equivalent to human breathing and forceful cough. Particles were measured at positions correlating to anesthetic personnel in relation to a patient inside an operating theatre environment. The effect of the application of face shields on HCW exposure was measured. Results & Conclusion: Significant reductions in particle concentrations were measured after the application of vented and enclosed face shields. Face shields appear to reduce the concentration of aerosolized particles that HCWs are exposed to, thereby potentially conferring further protection against exposure to aerosolized particles in an operating theatre environment.

Face shields protect health workers from splash contamination. We do not know if they protect against smaller invisible aerosol drops that can carry diseases like coronavirus 2019/COVID-19. The authors tested whether face shields can stop floating droplets using different types of face shields. This included one that was designed and made by a 3D printer, and traditional face shields. The shields were tested in a hospital operating room. A machine was designed that made invisible saltwater droplets. A monitor was used to measure the droplets present at a doctor's or nurse's mouth and then if this changed when a face shield was used. The face shield might be helpful in stopping health workers from catching diseases by stopping the flow of aerosol drops.

Occurrence of COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) litters along the eastern coast of Palawan Island, Philippines.

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has caused worldwide health constraints. This study was conducted to establish a baseline monitoring survey to describe the distribution of PPE litters during the COVID-19 pandemic in the province of Palawan, Philippines. A total of 386 COVID-19-related PPE items were present in 83 % of coastal sampling sites with over a cumulative area of 48,200 m2, with a density of 8 × 10-3 items m-2. The facemask (98 %; n = 377) was the primary type of PPE, followed by face shield (2 %; n = 9). Meanwhile, the daily density of PPE litters in San Manuel, Puerto Princesa ranged from 0 to 9.9 × 10-2 items m-2, with a mean density of 8 × 10-3 items m-2. The accumulation rates of PPE items ranged from 3.27 × 10-1 items to 1.143 items d-1, with an average rate of 7.29 × 10-1 items d-1.

Efficacy of SG Shield in reducing droplet contamination during collection of oropharyngeal swab culture specimens.

Introduction: Oropharyngeal swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19 often induce violent coughing, which can disperse infectious droplets onto providers. Incorrectly doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) increases the risk of transmission. A cheap, single-use variation of the face shield invented by a Singaporean team, SG Shield, aims to reduce this risk. This manikin study aimed to study the efficacy of the SG Shield in combination with standard PPE. Methods: A person attired in full PPE whose face and chest was lined with grid paper stood in front of an airway manikin in an enclosed room. A small latex balloon containing ultraviolet fluorescent dye was placed in the oral cavity of the manikin and inflated until explosion to simulate a cough. Three study groups were tested: (a) control (no shield), (b) face shield and (c) SG Shield. The primary outcome was droplet dispersion, determined quantitatively by calculating the proportion of grid paper wall squares stained with fluorescent dye. The secondary outcome was the severity of provider contamination. Results: The SG Shield significantly reduced droplet dispersion to 0% compared to the controls (99.0%, P = 0.001). The face shield also significantly reduced droplet contamination but to a lesser extent (80.0%) compared to the control group (P = 0.001). Although the qualitative severity of droplet contamination was significantly lower in both groups compared to the controls, the face shield group had more contamination of the provider's head and neck. Conclusion: The manikin study showed that the SG Shield significantly reduces droplet dispersion to the swab provider's face and chest.

The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background/Aims: The worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led endoscopists to use personal protective equipment (PPE) for infection prevention. This study aimed to investigate whether wearing a face shield as PPE affects the quality of colonoscopy. Methods: We reviewed the medical records and colonoscopy findings of patients who underwent colonoscopies at Asan Medical Center, Korea from March 10 to May 31, 2020. The colonoscopies in this study were performed by five gastroenterology fellows and four expert endoscopists. We compared colonoscopy quality indicators, such as withdrawal time, adenoma detection rate (ADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), polypectomy time, and polypectomy adverse events, both before and after face shields were added as PPE on April 13, 2020. Results: Of the 1,344 colonoscopies analyzed, 715 and 629 were performed before and after the introduction of face shields, respectively. The median withdrawal time was similar between the face shield and no-face shield groups (8.72 minutes vs 8.68 minutes, p=0.816), as was the ADR (41.5% vs 39.8%, p=0.605) and APC (0.72 vs 0.77, p=0.510). Polypectomy-associated quality indicators, such as polypectomy time and polypectomy adverse events were also not different between the groups. Quality indicators were not different between the face shield and no-face shield groups of gastroenterology fellows, or of expert endoscopists. Conclusions: Colonoscopy performance was not unfavorably affected by the use of a face shield. PPE, including face shields, can be recommended without a concern about colonoscopy quality deterioration.