Analysing air particle quantity in a dental primary care setting
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Objectives
This study was undertaken to assess the amount of dental aerosol created in a primary care dental surgery.
Methods
Two particle meters were placed a set distances round a volunteer patient whilst undergoing simulated dental treatment using a high speed dental handpiece, and 3-in-1 air/water syringe, moisture control was managed with high volume suction and a saliva ejector. Measurement were taken every thirty seconds with the surgery environment set a neutral ventilation and with the windows open plus fan assistance.
Results
From the cessation of aerosol generation it took between 6 and 19 minutes for the surgery to return to baseline. The ventilated surgery had faster aerosol dispersal, returning to background levels within 5 minutes.
Conclusion
It is concluded for the surgery under investigation the dental aerosol had dissipated after 30 minutes using HVS and optimal surgery.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.12.20173450: (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 not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.12.20173450: (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 not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.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.
-
