Pilot assessment reveals greenhouse gas emissions vary substantially across common dentoalveolar procedures, indicating reusable materials and energy management can reduce dental carbon footprints.
The aim of this study was to investigate the environmental impact of dentoalveolar surgical interventions using a method that is accessible to all dentists, thus facilitating the environmentally conscious dental practice. This study was based on the determination of carbon footprint of the 10 most common dentoalveolar surgical procedures (extraction of primary and permanent teeth, odontectomy, apicectomy, alveolar ridge plasty, premolarisation) performed within the framework of the Dental Faculty of George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures in the ideal, average and worst case scenarios. There were examined the steps of the various procedures and the materials, tools and resources used, and then the carbon footprint of the procedures was determined using Defra conversion factors. The carbon footprint of different dentoalveolar surgical procedures varies between 338.815 and 3075.441 g CO2e. Odontectomy of intraosseous impacted wisdom teeth has the largest carbon footprint, while extraction with elevators, forceps and extraction of primary teeth have the smallest carbon footprint. Statistically significant differences were observed between the carbon footprint values of the ideal and worst scenarios and between the average and worst scenarios. The use of disposable materials, energy consumption and disinfection of dental units and instruments contributed the most to the carbon footprint. Carbon footprint calculation is a simple tool, which is suitable for assessing the impact of dental activities on the environment. The results suggest that usage of reusable items would reduce significantly the carbon footprint of the investigated dentoalveolar surgery procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krisztina et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: