A laboratory comparison of evacuation devices on aerosol reduction.

Mary E. Jacks

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: Aerosols are defined as airborne particles that range in size from 0.5 to 10 microns (micron). They are produced during ultrasonic instrumentation, but they can be reduced. Irrigant solutions, which produce the therapeutic effects of lavage, also combine with blood, saliva, and bacteria to produce potentially harmful airborne particulates. The American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend utilization of high volume evacuation, rubber dam, and patient positioning for aerosol control. But for the non-assisted dental hygienist, these recommendations are difficult to implement. This study was designed to compare the concentration of airborne particulates from ultrasonic scaling, utilizing three different methods of evacuation. METHODS: In a laboratory setting, ultrasonic airborne particulates were generated utilizing a 25,000 cps magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaling instrument. Three evacuation devises were compared for effectiveness: a standard saliva ejector intraorally positioned; and two extraorally positioned, hands-free high-volume evacuation (HFHVE) techniques. One of these devices had a standard attachment, and, the other had a funnel-shaped attachment. Measurement of airborne particles was performed with a DataRAM Real-Time Aerosol Monitor. RESULTS: This study (N = 21) found a significant reduction in the number of airborne particulates with either form of extraoral HFHVE attachment in place. Standard attachments and funnel-shaped attachments to HFHVE resulted in reduction of particulates by 90.8% and 89.7%, respectively, when compared to the intraorally positioned standard saliva ejector. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing either form of HFHVE during ultrasonic instrumentation significantly reduced the number of aerosolized particulates that reached the breathing space of the client and clinician. This lends support for the ADA and CDC recommendation that HVE be used during aerosol producing procedures. Currently, no preventive measure is 100% effective; therefore, clinicians are encouraged to use additional methods to minimize the number of airborne particulates produced during intraoral instrumentation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)202-206
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists' Association
Volume76
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Aerosols
Ultrasonics
Equipment and Supplies
Hand
American Dental Association
Saliva
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.)
Rubber Dams
Dental Hygienists
Patient Positioning
Therapeutic Irrigation
Therapeutic Uses
Respiration
Bacteria

Cite this

A laboratory comparison of evacuation devices on aerosol reduction. / Jacks, Mary E.

In: Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists' Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2002, p. 202-206.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2bb1c9a1e2ff47c69ff8a335b4862433,
title = "A laboratory comparison of evacuation devices on aerosol reduction.",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Aerosols are defined as airborne particles that range in size from 0.5 to 10 microns (micron). They are produced during ultrasonic instrumentation, but they can be reduced. Irrigant solutions, which produce the therapeutic effects of lavage, also combine with blood, saliva, and bacteria to produce potentially harmful airborne particulates. The American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend utilization of high volume evacuation, rubber dam, and patient positioning for aerosol control. But for the non-assisted dental hygienist, these recommendations are difficult to implement. This study was designed to compare the concentration of airborne particulates from ultrasonic scaling, utilizing three different methods of evacuation. METHODS: In a laboratory setting, ultrasonic airborne particulates were generated utilizing a 25,000 cps magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaling instrument. Three evacuation devises were compared for effectiveness: a standard saliva ejector intraorally positioned; and two extraorally positioned, hands-free high-volume evacuation (HFHVE) techniques. One of these devices had a standard attachment, and, the other had a funnel-shaped attachment. Measurement of airborne particles was performed with a DataRAM Real-Time Aerosol Monitor. RESULTS: This study (N = 21) found a significant reduction in the number of airborne particulates with either form of extraoral HFHVE attachment in place. Standard attachments and funnel-shaped attachments to HFHVE resulted in reduction of particulates by 90.8{\%} and 89.7{\%}, respectively, when compared to the intraorally positioned standard saliva ejector. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing either form of HFHVE during ultrasonic instrumentation significantly reduced the number of aerosolized particulates that reached the breathing space of the client and clinician. This lends support for the ADA and CDC recommendation that HVE be used during aerosol producing procedures. Currently, no preventive measure is 100{\%} effective; therefore, clinicians are encouraged to use additional methods to minimize the number of airborne particulates produced during intraoral instrumentation.",
author = "Jacks, {Mary E.}",
year = "2002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "202--206",
journal = "Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists' Association",
issn = "1043-254X",
publisher = "American Dental Hygienists Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A laboratory comparison of evacuation devices on aerosol reduction.

AU - Jacks, Mary E.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - PURPOSE: Aerosols are defined as airborne particles that range in size from 0.5 to 10 microns (micron). They are produced during ultrasonic instrumentation, but they can be reduced. Irrigant solutions, which produce the therapeutic effects of lavage, also combine with blood, saliva, and bacteria to produce potentially harmful airborne particulates. The American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend utilization of high volume evacuation, rubber dam, and patient positioning for aerosol control. But for the non-assisted dental hygienist, these recommendations are difficult to implement. This study was designed to compare the concentration of airborne particulates from ultrasonic scaling, utilizing three different methods of evacuation. METHODS: In a laboratory setting, ultrasonic airborne particulates were generated utilizing a 25,000 cps magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaling instrument. Three evacuation devises were compared for effectiveness: a standard saliva ejector intraorally positioned; and two extraorally positioned, hands-free high-volume evacuation (HFHVE) techniques. One of these devices had a standard attachment, and, the other had a funnel-shaped attachment. Measurement of airborne particles was performed with a DataRAM Real-Time Aerosol Monitor. RESULTS: This study (N = 21) found a significant reduction in the number of airborne particulates with either form of extraoral HFHVE attachment in place. Standard attachments and funnel-shaped attachments to HFHVE resulted in reduction of particulates by 90.8% and 89.7%, respectively, when compared to the intraorally positioned standard saliva ejector. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing either form of HFHVE during ultrasonic instrumentation significantly reduced the number of aerosolized particulates that reached the breathing space of the client and clinician. This lends support for the ADA and CDC recommendation that HVE be used during aerosol producing procedures. Currently, no preventive measure is 100% effective; therefore, clinicians are encouraged to use additional methods to minimize the number of airborne particulates produced during intraoral instrumentation.

AB - PURPOSE: Aerosols are defined as airborne particles that range in size from 0.5 to 10 microns (micron). They are produced during ultrasonic instrumentation, but they can be reduced. Irrigant solutions, which produce the therapeutic effects of lavage, also combine with blood, saliva, and bacteria to produce potentially harmful airborne particulates. The American Dental Association (ADA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend utilization of high volume evacuation, rubber dam, and patient positioning for aerosol control. But for the non-assisted dental hygienist, these recommendations are difficult to implement. This study was designed to compare the concentration of airborne particulates from ultrasonic scaling, utilizing three different methods of evacuation. METHODS: In a laboratory setting, ultrasonic airborne particulates were generated utilizing a 25,000 cps magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaling instrument. Three evacuation devises were compared for effectiveness: a standard saliva ejector intraorally positioned; and two extraorally positioned, hands-free high-volume evacuation (HFHVE) techniques. One of these devices had a standard attachment, and, the other had a funnel-shaped attachment. Measurement of airborne particles was performed with a DataRAM Real-Time Aerosol Monitor. RESULTS: This study (N = 21) found a significant reduction in the number of airborne particulates with either form of extraoral HFHVE attachment in place. Standard attachments and funnel-shaped attachments to HFHVE resulted in reduction of particulates by 90.8% and 89.7%, respectively, when compared to the intraorally positioned standard saliva ejector. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing either form of HFHVE during ultrasonic instrumentation significantly reduced the number of aerosolized particulates that reached the breathing space of the client and clinician. This lends support for the ADA and CDC recommendation that HVE be used during aerosol producing procedures. Currently, no preventive measure is 100% effective; therefore, clinicians are encouraged to use additional methods to minimize the number of airborne particulates produced during intraoral instrumentation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036617637&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036617637&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 2002136505

AN - SCOPUS:0036617637

VL - 76

SP - 202

EP - 206

JO - Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists' Association

JF - Journal of dental hygiene : JDH / American Dental Hygienists' Association

SN - 1043-254X

IS - 3

ER -