Dental mitigation strategies to reduce aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2

Abstract

Limiting infection transmission is central to the safety of all in dentistry, particularly during the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) are crucial to the practise of dentistry; it is imperative to understand the inherent risks of viral dispersion associated with AGPs and the efficacy of available mitigation strategies. In a dental surgery setting, crown preparation and root canal access procedures were performed with an air turbine or electric speed-controlled hand-piece, with mitigation via rubber dam or high-volume aspiration and a no mitigation control. A phantom head was used with a 1.5 mL flow of artificial saliva infected with {Phi}6 bacteriophage (a surrogate virus for SARS-CoV-2) at ~108 plaque forming units mL-1, reflecting the upper limits of reported salivary SARS-CoV-2 levels. Bioaerosol dispersal was measured using agar settle plates lawned with the bacteriophage s host, Pseudomonas syringae. Viral air concentrations were assessed using MicroBio MB2 air sampling, and particle quantities using Kanomax 3889 GEO particle counters. Compared to an air turbine, the electric hand-piece reduced settled bioaerosols by 99.72%, 100.00% and 100.00% for no mitigation, aspiration and rubber dam, respectively. Bacteriophage concentrations in the air were reduced by 99.98%, 100.00% and 100.00%, with the same mitigation strategies. Use of the electric hand-piece with high-volume aspiration, resulted in no detectable bacteriophage, both on settle plates and in air samples taken 6-10-minutes post-procedure. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report the aerosolization of active virus as a marker for risk determination in the dental setting. Whilst this model represents a worst-case scenario for possible SARS-CoV-2 dispersal, these data showed that the use of electric hand-pieces can vastly reduce the risk of viral aerosolization, and therefore remove the need for clinic fallow time. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the use of particle analysis alone cannot provide sufficient insight to understand bioaerosol infection risk.