Back

Is Standard Personal Protective Equipment Effective Enough To Prevent COVID-19 Transmission During Aerosol Generating Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial Procedures ? A Systematic Review

Al-Moraissi, E. A.; abood, M.; Alasseri, N.; Gunther, F.; Neff, A.

2020-11-23 dentistry and oral medicine
10.1101/2020.11.20.20235333 medRxiv
Show abstract

A systematic review was performed to answer the following questions: 1) Do dental, oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgical procedures generate bioaerosols (and if so, which ones), which can result in transmission of COVID-19?; 2) Are aerosolized airborne droplets (and to which extent is splatter) in dental and OMF procedures infective?; 3) Is enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) an essential to prevent spreading of COVID-19 during dental and OMF aerosol generating procedures (AGPs)? Authors performed a systematic review to retrieve all pertinent literature that assessed effectiveness of surgical mask vs respirators for protecting dental health care workers during dental and OMF AGPs surgical procedures. Additionally, studies which assessed potential aerosolization during dental, OMF and orthopaedic surgeries were retrieved. There is moderate evidence showing that ultrasonic scaling and bone drilling using high speed rotary instruments produces respirable aerosols. Additionally, there is very weak/inconclusive evidence to support the creation of infectious aerosols during dental procedures. According to available very weak/inconclusive evidence, transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via infective aerosol during AGPS, so far, must remain speculative and controversial. As, however, this is a probable opportunistic way of transmission which at least cannot be sufficiently excluded and therefore should not be dismissed out of hand prematurely, proper and equally important properly applied protective equipment (i.e., N95 respirators or FFP-2 masksv or above regarding mouth and nose protection) should always be used during AGPs.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.2%
2
Journal of Dental Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.7%
4
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
7.0%
5
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
7
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
9
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.7%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.4%
11
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
12
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
13
American Journal of Infection Control
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 41%
1.7%
15
Biomolecules
95 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.4%
16
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
18
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
19
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
20
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%
21
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.5%