Lakshman Perera Samaranayake1, Kausar Sadia Fakhruddin2, Hien Chi Ngo3, Jeffrey Wen Wei Chang1, Chamila Panduwawala2,4. 1. Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. 2. Department of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE. 3. School of Dentistry, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. 4. Department Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease-19, caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the latest hazard facing healthcare workers (HCW) including dental care workers (DCW). It is clear that the major mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is the airborne route, through inhalation of virus-infested aerosols and droplets. Several respiratory protection equipment (RPE), including masks, face shields/visors, and respirators, are available to obviate facial and conjunctival contamination by microbes. However, as their barrier value against microbial inhalation has not been evaluated, we systematically reviewed the data on the effectiveness and efficacy of facemasks and respirators, including protective eyewear, with particular emphasis on dental healthcare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched between 01January 1990 and 15 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 310 identified English language records, 21 were included as per eligibility criteria. In clinical terms, wearing layered, face-fitting masks/respirators and protective-eyewear can limit the spread of infection among HCWs. Specifically, combined interventions such as a face mask and a face shield, better resist bioaerosol inhalation than either alone. The prolonged and over-extended use of surgical masks compromise their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In general, RPE is effective as a barrier protection against aerosolized microbes in healthcare settings. But their filtration efficacy is compromised by the (i) inhalant particle size, (ii) airflow dynamics, (iii) mask-fit factor, (iv) period of wear, (v) 'wetness' of the masks, and (vi) their fabrication quality. The macro-data presented here should inform policy formulation on RPE wear amongst HCWs.
OBJECTIVE: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease-19, caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is the latest hazard facing healthcare workers (HCW) including dental care workers (DCW). It is clear that the major mode of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is the airborne route, through inhalation of virus-infested aerosols and droplets. Several respiratory protection equipment (RPE), including masks, face shields/visors, and respirators, are available to obviate facial and conjunctival contamination by microbes. However, as their barrier value against microbial inhalation has not been evaluated, we systematically reviewed the data on the effectiveness and efficacy of facemasks and respirators, including protective eyewear, with particular emphasis on dental healthcare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched between 01January 1990 and 15 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 310 identified English language records, 21 were included as per eligibility criteria. In clinical terms, wearing layered, face-fitting masks/respirators and protective-eyewear can limit the spread of infection among HCWs. Specifically, combined interventions such as a face mask and a face shield, better resist bioaerosol inhalation than either alone. The prolonged and over-extended use of surgical masks compromise their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In general, RPE is effective as a barrier protection against aerosolized microbes in healthcare settings. But their filtration efficacy is compromised by the (i) inhalant particle size, (ii) airflow dynamics, (iii) mask-fit factor, (iv) period of wear, (v) 'wetness' of the masks, and (vi) their fabrication quality. The macro-data presented here should inform policy formulation on RPE wear amongst HCWs.
Authors: Madline P Gund; Jusef Naim; Matthias Hannig; Alexander Halfmann; Barbara Gärtner; Gabor Boros; Stefan Rupf Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Jelena Jacimovic; Aleksandar Jakovljevic; Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu; Henry Fergus Duncan; Paul M H Dummer Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Andrea Ramirez Varela; Alejandro Pacheco Gurruchaga; Silvia Restrepo Restrepo; Juan David Martin; Yessica Daniela Campaz Landazabal; Guillermo Tamayo-Cabeza; Sandra Contreras-Arrieta; Yuldor Caballero-Díaz; Luis Jorge Hernandez Florez; John Mario González; Juan Carlos Santos-Barbosa; José David Pinzón; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez; Rachid Laajaj; Giancarlo Buitrago Gutierrez; Martha Vives Florez; Janner Fuentes Castillo; Gianni Quinche Vargas; Andres Casas; Antonio Medina; Eduardo Behrentz Journal: Trials Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Samantha Hall; Paul Johnson; Claire Bailey; Zoe Gould; Robert White; Brian Crook Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 2.779