Evaluating splatter and settled aerosol during orthodontic debonding: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
- Evaluated articles (Rapid Reviews Infectious Diseases)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
Filippo Graziani, Rossana Izzetti
Review 2: "Evaluating aerosol and splatter during orthodontic debonding: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic"
This paper studies aerosol and splatter deposition of fluorescein dye as a proxy for virus spread during an orthodontic debonding procedure. Dye was detected only in the proximity of the dental chair, and also suggests a low risk for aerosol generation.
-
Richard Niederman
Review 1: "Evaluating aerosol and splatter during orthodontic debonding: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic"
This paper studies aerosol and splatter deposition of fluorescein dye as a proxy for virus spread during an orthodontic debonding procedure. Dye was detected only in the proximity of the dental chair, and also suggests a low risk for aerosol generation.
-
Strength of evidence
Reviewers: Richard Niederman (New York University) | 📒📒📒◻️◻️
Filippo Graziani, Rossana Izzetti (University of Pisa School of Medicine and Surgery) | 📗📗📗📗◻️ -
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.19.20178319: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding Examiners for both analysis methods were blinded to the experimental conditions and were calibrated for image analysis. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Contamination of the filter papers was assessed as previously described39 using fluorescence photography with a 500-600 nm wavelength halogen lamp (QHL75 model 503; Dentsply, NC, USA) and DSLR camera (EOS 1000D, Canon; Tokyo; Japan), and subsequent image analysis using ImageJ (v1.48 NIH; MD, USA) to give a surface area measurement (mm2) of fluorescein contamination; this … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.19.20178319: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding Examiners for both analysis methods were blinded to the experimental conditions and were calibrated for image analysis. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Contamination of the filter papers was assessed as previously described39 using fluorescence photography with a 500-600 nm wavelength halogen lamp (QHL75 model 503; Dentsply, NC, USA) and DSLR camera (EOS 1000D, Canon; Tokyo; Japan), and subsequent image analysis using ImageJ (v1.48 NIH; MD, USA) to give a surface area measurement (mm2) of fluorescein contamination; this method is likely to detect large droplets and splatter. ImageJsuggested: (ImageJ, RRID:SCR_003070)Data were collected using Excel (2016, Microsoft; WA, USA) and analysed using SPSS (Version 24, IBM Corp.; SPSSsuggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)Heatmaps were generated using Python 344. Pythonsuggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Our methodology has some limitations. The splatter and settled aerosol detection technique used in this study was a passive technique, in that it relied on contaminated splatter or aerosol naturally settling onto filter papers. Active sampling techniques (such as air samplers or particle counting instruments) are available and would complement this work by also allowing sampling of the proportion of the aerosol that remains suspended. However, these methods also have limitations, such as the spot nature of their sampling, which would make sampling of the 101 locations used in this investigation impractical. Also, some methods (such as optical particle meters) are non-specific, and once particle levels have returned to background levels, it is challenging to know how much of the background sample is made up of contaminated air. Because the present study relied on settling, it is likely that this methodology does not measure the fraction of aerosol which remains suspended in the air (suspended aerosol; likely droplets <5 µm). Larger droplets (up to 30 µm) may also become aerosolised and may travel some distance before settling onto surfaces;48 this fraction of the aerosol (settled aerosol) in addition to larger droplets and splatter will be detected by the present methodology. Both suspended and settled aerosol represent an inhalation risk, and studies addressing both components should be interpreted in combination. It is important to note, however, that emerging evidence sugge...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
-
-
-
