Comparative Dissemination of Aerosol and Splatter Using Suction Device during Ultrasonic Scaling: A Pilot Study
Issued Date
2022-08-01
Resource Type
eISSN
23046767
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85136641955
Journal Title
Dentistry Journal
Volume
10
Issue
8
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Dentistry Journal Vol.10 No.8 (2022)
Suggested Citation
Engsomboon N., Pachimsawat P., Thanathornwong B. Comparative Dissemination of Aerosol and Splatter Using Suction Device during Ultrasonic Scaling: A Pilot Study. Dentistry Journal Vol.10 No.8 (2022). doi:10.3390/dj10080142 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/87772
Title
Comparative Dissemination of Aerosol and Splatter Using Suction Device during Ultrasonic Scaling: A Pilot Study
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the aerosol and splatter diameter and count numbers produced by a dental mouth prop with a suction holder device and a saliva ejector during ultrasonic scaling in a clinical setting. Methodology: Fluorescein dye was placed in the dental equipment irrigation reservoirs with a mannequin, and an ultrasonic scaler was employed. The procedures were performed three times per device. The upper and bottom board papers were placed on the laboratory platform. All processes used an ultrasonic scaler to generate aerosol and splatter. A dental mouth prop with a suction holder and a saliva ejector were also tested. Photographic analysis was used to examine the fluorescein samples, followed by image processing in Python and assessment of the diameter and count number. For device comparison, statistics were used with an independent t-test. Result: When using the dental mouth prop with a suction holder, the scaler produced aerosol particles that were maintained on the upper board paper (mean ± SD: 1080 ± 662 µm) compared to on the bottom board paper (1230 ± 1020 µm). When the saliva ejector was used, it was found that the diameter of the aerosol on the upper board paper was 900 ± 580 µm, and the diameter on the bottom board paper was 1000 ± 756 µm. Conclusion: There was a significant difference in the aerosol and splatter particle diameter and count number between the dental mouth prop with a suction holder and saliva ejector (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups on the upper and bottom board papers.