We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of suction device with saliva ejector for aerosol and spatter reduction during ultrasonic scaling.
Journal of the American Dental Association 2015 January
BACKGROUND: Aerosols and spatter are concerns in health care owing to their potential adverse health effects. The Isolite illuminated isolation system (Isolite Systems) and a saliva ejector were compared for aerosol and spatter reduction during and after ultrasonic scaling.
METHODS: Fifty participants were randomized to control (n = 25, saliva ejector) or test (n = 25, Isolite) groups and received a prophylaxis with an ultrasonic scaler. Aerosols were collected in a petri dish containing transport media, dispersed, and plated to anaerobic blood agar to determine colony-forming units (CFUs). The authors analyzed the data using a t test.
RESULTS: No significant difference occurred between groups in aerosol and spatter reduction (P = .25). Mean (standard deviation) of log10 CFUs per milliliter collected during ultrasonic scaling in the control and test groups were 3.61 (0.95) and 3.30 (0.88), respectively. All samples contained α-hemolytic streptococci, and many samples contained strictly oral anaerobes.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant amount of contamination occurred during ultrasonic scaling in both groups, as indicated by high numbers of CFUs and the identification of strictly oral anaerobes in all plates.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Neither device reduced aerosols and spatter effectively, and there was no significant difference in reduction between the 2 devices. Additional measures should be taken with these devices to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission.
METHODS: Fifty participants were randomized to control (n = 25, saliva ejector) or test (n = 25, Isolite) groups and received a prophylaxis with an ultrasonic scaler. Aerosols were collected in a petri dish containing transport media, dispersed, and plated to anaerobic blood agar to determine colony-forming units (CFUs). The authors analyzed the data using a t test.
RESULTS: No significant difference occurred between groups in aerosol and spatter reduction (P = .25). Mean (standard deviation) of log10 CFUs per milliliter collected during ultrasonic scaling in the control and test groups were 3.61 (0.95) and 3.30 (0.88), respectively. All samples contained α-hemolytic streptococci, and many samples contained strictly oral anaerobes.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant amount of contamination occurred during ultrasonic scaling in both groups, as indicated by high numbers of CFUs and the identification of strictly oral anaerobes in all plates.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Neither device reduced aerosols and spatter effectively, and there was no significant difference in reduction between the 2 devices. Additional measures should be taken with these devices to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app