Dental aerosol-producing treatments: Comparison of contamination patterns of face shields and surgical masks.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1080/15459624.2023.2285363
Madline P Gund, Jusef Naim, Halil Muhammed Bayhan, Matthias Hannig, Barbara Gärtner, Alexander Halfmann, Gabor Boros, Stefan Rupf
{"title":"Dental aerosol-producing treatments: Comparison of contamination patterns of face shields and surgical masks.","authors":"Madline P Gund, Jusef Naim, Halil Muhammed Bayhan, Matthias Hannig, Barbara Gärtner, Alexander Halfmann, Gabor Boros, Stefan Rupf","doi":"10.1080/15459624.2023.2285363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>During the COVID-19 pandemic, dental face shields were recommended to protect the eyes. This study aimed to examine to what extent face shield and mask contamination differ when a pre-procedural mouth rinsing with Chlorhexidine (CHX) is conducted before treatment. In this prospective, randomized study, three groups of subjects were formed (rinsing with 0.1% CHX, water, or no rinsing (control) before aerosol-producing treatments). After each of the 301 treatments, the practitioner's face shield was swabbed with eSwab and the mask was brought into contact with agar plates. Sampling was done from the exterior surface only. Samples were cultured for 48 h at 35 °C under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Bacteria were classified by phenotypic characteristics, biochemical test methods, and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Colony-forming units were counted and mean values were compared (WSR, H-test, U-test, <i>p</i> < 0.05). Within each subject group, face shields showed significantly more contamination than surgical masks (control group: 350 CFU, 50 CFU; intervention water: 270 CFU, 40 CFU; intervention CHX: 250 CFU, 30 CFU). Comparison of face shields of the different subject groups did not reveal any statistically significant differences. However, CHX resulted in a statistically significant bacterial reduction on surgical masks compared to the water and control group (control: 50 CFU, intervention water: 40 CFU, intervention CHX: 30 CFU). Contamination of face shields and surgical masks was highest in the control group, followed by the water group, and lowest in the intervention group with CHX. <i>Streptococcus spp</i>. and <i>Staphylococcus spp</i>. dominated, representing the oral and cutaneous flora. Contamination of masks worn with or without face shields did not differ. Presumably, face shields intercept first splashes and droplets, while the masks were mainly exposed to bioaerosol mist. Consequently, face shields protect the facial region and surroundings from splashes and droplets, but not the mask itself. A pre-procedural mouth rinse with CHX had no statistically significant reducing effect on contamination of the face shield, but a statistically significant reducing effect was observed on contamination of the mask.</p>","PeriodicalId":16599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","volume":" ","pages":"126-135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2023.2285363","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, dental face shields were recommended to protect the eyes. This study aimed to examine to what extent face shield and mask contamination differ when a pre-procedural mouth rinsing with Chlorhexidine (CHX) is conducted before treatment. In this prospective, randomized study, three groups of subjects were formed (rinsing with 0.1% CHX, water, or no rinsing (control) before aerosol-producing treatments). After each of the 301 treatments, the practitioner's face shield was swabbed with eSwab and the mask was brought into contact with agar plates. Sampling was done from the exterior surface only. Samples were cultured for 48 h at 35 °C under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Bacteria were classified by phenotypic characteristics, biochemical test methods, and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). Colony-forming units were counted and mean values were compared (WSR, H-test, U-test, p < 0.05). Within each subject group, face shields showed significantly more contamination than surgical masks (control group: 350 CFU, 50 CFU; intervention water: 270 CFU, 40 CFU; intervention CHX: 250 CFU, 30 CFU). Comparison of face shields of the different subject groups did not reveal any statistically significant differences. However, CHX resulted in a statistically significant bacterial reduction on surgical masks compared to the water and control group (control: 50 CFU, intervention water: 40 CFU, intervention CHX: 30 CFU). Contamination of face shields and surgical masks was highest in the control group, followed by the water group, and lowest in the intervention group with CHX. Streptococcus spp. and Staphylococcus spp. dominated, representing the oral and cutaneous flora. Contamination of masks worn with or without face shields did not differ. Presumably, face shields intercept first splashes and droplets, while the masks were mainly exposed to bioaerosol mist. Consequently, face shields protect the facial region and surroundings from splashes and droplets, but not the mask itself. A pre-procedural mouth rinse with CHX had no statistically significant reducing effect on contamination of the face shield, but a statistically significant reducing effect was observed on contamination of the mask.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
牙科气溶胶产生治疗:面罩和外科口罩污染模式的比较。
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,建议使用牙科面罩来保护眼睛。本研究旨在探讨在治疗前用洗必泰(CHX)漱口时,面罩和口罩的污染程度有何不同。在这项前瞻性随机研究中,受试者分为三组(在产生气溶胶的治疗前用 0.1% CHX 漱口、用水漱口或不漱口(对照组))。每次进行 301 次处理后,用 eSwab 擦拭从业人员的面罩,然后将面罩与琼脂平板接触。取样仅从外表面进行。样本在 35 °C、需氧和厌氧条件下培养 48 小时。通过表型特征、生化测试方法和基质辅助激光解吸/电离飞行时间质谱法(MALDI-TOF MS)对细菌进行分类。对菌落形成单位进行计数,并比较平均值(WSR、H 检验、U 检验、p 链球菌属和葡萄球菌属占主导地位,代表口腔和皮肤菌群。戴口罩和不戴口罩的污染情况没有差别。据推测,面罩可拦截第一批飞溅物和飞沫,而口罩则主要接触生物气溶胶雾。因此,面罩能保护面部区域和周围环境免受飞溅物和飞沫的伤害,但不能保护面罩本身。在术前用 CHX 漱口对减少面罩污染没有明显的统计学作用,但对减少口罩污染有明显的统计学作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 环境科学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
81
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene ( JOEH ) is a joint publication of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA®) and ACGIH®. The JOEH is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to enhancing the knowledge and practice of occupational and environmental hygiene and safety by widely disseminating research articles and applied studies of the highest quality. The JOEH provides a written medium for the communication of ideas, methods, processes, and research in core and emerging areas of occupational and environmental hygiene. Core domains include, but are not limited to: exposure assessment, control strategies, ergonomics, and risk analysis. Emerging domains include, but are not limited to: sensor technology, emergency preparedness and response, changing workforce, and management and analysis of "big" data.
期刊最新文献
Application of the Tier 3 NIOSH occupational exposure banding process for the graphene family of nanomaterials: A case study. Caution with self-reported occupational noise exposures. Lessons learned in establishing and sustaining elastomeric half mask respirator-based respiratory protection programs: An impact evaluation. Removal efficiency of antineoplastic drug cyclophosphamide by hypochlorous acid. Response to the comments from Mr. Shkembi.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1