BACKGROUND: The authors conducted a study to compare the effectiveness of two dry-field isolation techniques with that of a control technique (no isolation) in reducing spatter from a dental operative site. METHODS: The authors designed a benchtop experiment to evaluate spatter patterns after performing simulated occlusal surface preparations on three typodont teeth in a dental manikin. Fluorescein dye served as the marker to enable visualization of the spatter distribution. The authors compared the effectiveness of a nonisolated control consisting of high-volume evacuation (HVE) alone with that of two dry-field isolation techniques: a dental dam with HVE and the Isolite system (Isolite Systems, Santa Barbara, Calif). RESULTS: The authors performed a two-way analysis of variance. Both the Isolite device and the dental dam with HVE exhibited a significant decrease in the number of contaminated squares (P < .001) compared with that for the nonisolated control. In addition, overall, the results showed no statistically significant difference between the Isolite system and the dental dam with HVE (P = .126). CONCLUSIONS: The study results showed that use of a dental dam with HVE or the Isolite system significantly reduced spatter overall compared with use of HVE alone. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Isolation with a dental dam and HVE or with the Isolite system appears to aid in the reduction of spatter during operative dental procedures, potentially reducing exposure to oral pathogens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dahlke et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: