Comparison of suction device with saliva ejector for aerosol and spatter reduction during ultrasonic scaling
Comparison of suction device with saliva ejector for aerosol and spatter reduction during ultrasonic scaling
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.adaj.2014.10.001
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Arnold, Roland R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Holloman, Jessica L.;Mauriello, Sally M.;Arnold, Roland R.
背景。气溶胶和飞溅物因其潜在的不利健康影响而成为卫生保健领域关注的问题。本文比较了隔离体照明隔离系统（Isolite Systems）和唾液喷射器在超声除垢期间和之后减少气溶胶和飞溅的效果。50名参与者被随机分为对照组（n = 25，唾液喷射器）或试验组（n = 25，孤立体），并接受超声秤预防。将气溶胶收集在含有运输介质的培养皿中，分散，并涂在厌氧血琼脂上以测定菌落形成单位（cfu）。作者使用t检验分析数据。两组之间在气溶胶和飞溅减少方面无显著差异（P = 0.25）。对照组和试验组超声除垢时每毫升收集的log10 CFUs的平均值（标准差）分别为3.61（0.95）和3.30（0.88）。所有样本均含有溶血性链球菌，许多样本含有严格的口服厌氧。在超声洗洁时，两组都发生了大量的污染，这表明大量的cfu和所有盘子中严格的口腔厌氧菌的鉴定。实际意义。两种设备都不能有效地减少气溶胶和飞溅，并且两种设备之间在减少方面没有显著差异。对这些装置应采取其他措施，以减少疾病传播的可能性。
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 alpha-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.