COVID-19 大流行期间牙科护理中减少气溶胶弥散装置的三种原型的微生物学和人体工程学效果:随机对照临床试验。

IF 2.5 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Camila N Baldasso, Ruy Teichert-Filho, Daniel R Marinowic, Maria M Campos, Maximiliano S Gomes
{"title":"COVID-19 大流行期间牙科护理中减少气溶胶弥散装置的三种原型的微生物学和人体工程学效果:随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Camila N Baldasso, Ruy Teichert-Filho, Daniel R Marinowic, Maria M Campos, Maximiliano S Gomes","doi":"10.3390/dj13020054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives</b>: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the microbiological efficacy and the ergonomic impact of three prototypes of a device to reduce aerosol dispersion during dental procedures. <b>Methods</b>: Sixty patients undergoing dental care using high-speed turbines and/or ultrasonic tips were randomly assigned to 4 groups (<i>n</i> = 15): CG: control group, with standard personal protective equipment (PPE); G1: PPE + acrylic device (AD) with aspiration; G2: PPE + AD without aspiration; and G3: PPE + polyvinyl chloride device. The device prototypes consisted of a rigid translucent acrylic structure (G1 and G2), or a rigid PVC tube structure surrounded by layers of translucent flexible PVC films (G3), adjusted to the dental chair, involving the patient's head, neck and chest. The main outcome was the microbiological analysis (mean Δ of CFU at 10 different sites), and the secondary outcome was the ergonomic evaluation (questionnaire to dentists and patients). <b>Results</b>: The final sample comprised 59 participants (mean age 38.6 ± 11.4 years, 55.2% male). The overall mean time for dental procedures was 32.4 ± 16.9 min, with no differences between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.348). Microbiological analyses showed that the use of the device significantly reduced contamination in the light reflector (01.46 ± 4.43 ΔCFU in G2 vs. 19.25 ± 36.50 ΔCFU in CG; <i>p</i> = 0.028), apron (09.11 ± 12.05 ΔCFU in G3 vs. 21.14 ± 43.41 ΔCFU in GC; <i>p</i> = 0.044), and face shield (08.80 ± 32.70 ΔCFU in G1 vs. 56.78 ± 76.64 ΔCFU in the GC; <i>p</i> = 0.017). The device was well accepted by patients and increased the dentists' perception of safety and protection (<i>p</i> < 0.001), but significantly decreased ergonomics related to the clinical view, space, agility and access to the patient, and ease of performing procedures (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions</b>: The tested device can be an additional tool for infection prevention and control in dentistry, not only during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also for the control of future infectious diseases and epidemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11854043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microbiological and Ergonomic Effects of Three Prototypes of a Device to Reduce Aerosol Dispersion in Dental Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Camila N Baldasso, Ruy Teichert-Filho, Daniel R Marinowic, Maria M Campos, Maximiliano S Gomes\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj13020054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives</b>: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the microbiological efficacy and the ergonomic impact of three prototypes of a device to reduce aerosol dispersion during dental procedures. <b>Methods</b>: Sixty patients undergoing dental care using high-speed turbines and/or ultrasonic tips were randomly assigned to 4 groups (<i>n</i> = 15): CG: control group, with standard personal protective equipment (PPE); G1: PPE + acrylic device (AD) with aspiration; G2: PPE + AD without aspiration; and G3: PPE + polyvinyl chloride device. The device prototypes consisted of a rigid translucent acrylic structure (G1 and G2), or a rigid PVC tube structure surrounded by layers of translucent flexible PVC films (G3), adjusted to the dental chair, involving the patient's head, neck and chest. The main outcome was the microbiological analysis (mean Δ of CFU at 10 different sites), and the secondary outcome was the ergonomic evaluation (questionnaire to dentists and patients). <b>Results</b>: The final sample comprised 59 participants (mean age 38.6 ± 11.4 years, 55.2% male). The overall mean time for dental procedures was 32.4 ± 16.9 min, with no differences between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.348). Microbiological analyses showed that the use of the device significantly reduced contamination in the light reflector (01.46 ± 4.43 ΔCFU in G2 vs. 19.25 ± 36.50 ΔCFU in CG; <i>p</i> = 0.028), apron (09.11 ± 12.05 ΔCFU in G3 vs. 21.14 ± 43.41 ΔCFU in GC; <i>p</i> = 0.044), and face shield (08.80 ± 32.70 ΔCFU in G1 vs. 56.78 ± 76.64 ΔCFU in the GC; <i>p</i> = 0.017). The device was well accepted by patients and increased the dentists' perception of safety and protection (<i>p</i> < 0.001), but significantly decreased ergonomics related to the clinical view, space, agility and access to the patient, and ease of performing procedures (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions</b>: The tested device can be an additional tool for infection prevention and control in dentistry, not only during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also for the control of future infectious diseases and epidemics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11854043/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13020054\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13020054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Microbiological and Ergonomic Effects of Three Prototypes of a Device to Reduce Aerosol Dispersion in Dental Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Objectives: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the microbiological efficacy and the ergonomic impact of three prototypes of a device to reduce aerosol dispersion during dental procedures. Methods: Sixty patients undergoing dental care using high-speed turbines and/or ultrasonic tips were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 15): CG: control group, with standard personal protective equipment (PPE); G1: PPE + acrylic device (AD) with aspiration; G2: PPE + AD without aspiration; and G3: PPE + polyvinyl chloride device. The device prototypes consisted of a rigid translucent acrylic structure (G1 and G2), or a rigid PVC tube structure surrounded by layers of translucent flexible PVC films (G3), adjusted to the dental chair, involving the patient's head, neck and chest. The main outcome was the microbiological analysis (mean Δ of CFU at 10 different sites), and the secondary outcome was the ergonomic evaluation (questionnaire to dentists and patients). Results: The final sample comprised 59 participants (mean age 38.6 ± 11.4 years, 55.2% male). The overall mean time for dental procedures was 32.4 ± 16.9 min, with no differences between groups (p = 0.348). Microbiological analyses showed that the use of the device significantly reduced contamination in the light reflector (01.46 ± 4.43 ΔCFU in G2 vs. 19.25 ± 36.50 ΔCFU in CG; p = 0.028), apron (09.11 ± 12.05 ΔCFU in G3 vs. 21.14 ± 43.41 ΔCFU in GC; p = 0.044), and face shield (08.80 ± 32.70 ΔCFU in G1 vs. 56.78 ± 76.64 ΔCFU in the GC; p = 0.017). The device was well accepted by patients and increased the dentists' perception of safety and protection (p < 0.001), but significantly decreased ergonomics related to the clinical view, space, agility and access to the patient, and ease of performing procedures (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The tested device can be an additional tool for infection prevention and control in dentistry, not only during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also for the control of future infectious diseases and epidemics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信