CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2021; 15(02): 340-346
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1724152
Original Article

Perioral Aerosol Sequestration Suction Device Effectively Reduces Biological Cross-Contamination in Dental Procedures

1   Human Anatomy and Embryology Unit, Experimental Pathology and Therapeutics Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Health University of Barcelona campus, L’Hospitalet 08907, Barcelona, Spain
2   Odontology Hospital UB, Odontostomatology Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Health University of Barcelona campus, L’Hospitalet 08907; Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Vicente Lozano-de Luaces
3   Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Health University of Barcelona campus, L’Hospitalet 08907, Barcelona, Spain
1   Human Anatomy and Embryology Unit, Experimental Pathology and Therapeutics Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Health University of Barcelona campus, L’Hospitalet 08907, Barcelona, Spain
› Author Affiliations
Funding The study obtained its funding from University of Barcelona Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Barcelona, Catalunya, ES.


Objective The infection risk during dental procedures is a common concern for dental professionals which has increased due to coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic. The development of devices to specifically mitigate cross-contamination by droplet/splatter is crucial to stop infection transmission. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a perioral suction device (Oral BioFilter, OBF) to reduce biological contamination spread during dental procedures.

Materials and Methods Forty patients were randomized 1:1 to a standard professional dental hygiene treatment with OBF and without. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence assay was used to evaluate the spread of potential contaminants. The total number of relative light units (RLU) from key dental operatory locations: operator’s face-shield, back of the surgical operator’s-gloves, patient’s safety-goggles, and instrumental table were measured. Percentage contamination reductions between control and OBF were compared.

Statistical Analysis Primary outcome, total RLU, was analyzed by comparing the means of logged data, using a two-sided two-sample t-test. Secondary outcomes as RLU of logged data for the different locations were analyzed in the same way. Proportion of patients from whom different locations reported events (clean, acceptable, and failure) were analyzed by using Fisher’s exact test.

Results For the whole dental environment, RLUs reduction (<150 units) achieved with OBF was 98.4% (97.4–99%). By dental operatory location the reduction in RLUs was from 99.6%, on the operator face-shield, to 83% on instrumental table. The control group reported a very high percentage of failures, (>300) being 100% on the surfaces closer to the patient’s mouth and decreasing to 70% on instrumental table. In contrast, the higher failure percentage in the OBF group was found on the patient’s goggles (40%), while the operator face-shield showed an absence of contamination.

Conclusion OBF device has shown efficient reduction of biological aerosol cross-contamination during dental procedures as proved by ATP-bioluminescence assay. Nevertheless, for maximum safety, its use must be combined with standard protective gear such as goggles, face shield, and surgical gloves.

Publication History

Article published online:
12 March 2021

© 2021. European Journal of Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

  • References

  • 1 Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, Cheng L, Zhou X, Ren B. Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. Int J Oral Sci 2020; 12 (01) 9
  • 2 Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: a brief review of the literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc 2004; 135 (04) 429-437
  • 3 Kumar PS, Subramanian K. Demystifying the mist: sources of microbial bioload in dental aerosols. J Periodontol 2020; 91 (09) 1113-1122
  • 4 Watanabe A, Tamaki N, Yokota K, Matsuyama M, Kokeguchi S. Use of ATP bioluminescence to survey the spread of aerosol and splatter during dental treatments. J Hosp Infect 2018; 99 (03) 303-305
  • 5 Bizzoca ME, Campisi G, Lo Muzio L. An innovative risk-scoring system of dental procedures and safety protocols in the COVID-19 era. BMC Oral Health 2020; 20 (01) 301
  • 6 Ather A, Patel B, Ruparel NB, Diogenes A, Hargreaves KM. Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19): implications for clinical dental care. J Endod 2020; 46 (05) 584-595
  • 7 Zemouri C, Awad SF, Volgenant CM. Crielaard W, Laheij AMGA, de Soet JJ. Modeling of the transmission of coronaviruses, measles virus, influenza virus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and Legionella pneumophila in dental clinics. J Dent Res 2020; 99 (10) 1192-1198
  • 8 Guo ZD, Wang ZY, Zhang SF. et al. Aerosol and surface distribution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospital wards, Wuhan, China, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26 (07) 1583-1591
  • 9 Alfa MJ, Olson N, Murray BL. Adenosine tri-phosphate (ATP)-based cleaning monitoring in health care: how rapidly does environmental ATP deteriorate?. J Hosp Infect 2015; 90 (01) 59-65
  • 10 Osimani A, Garofalo C, Clementi F, Tavoletti S, Aquilanti L. Bioluminescence ATP monitoring for the routine assessment of food contact surface cleanliness in a university canteen. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11 (10) 10824-10837
  • 11 Sanna T, Dallolio L, Raggi A. et al. ATP bioluminescence assay for evaluating cleaning practices in operating theatres: applicability and limitations. BMC Infect Dis 2018; 18 (01) 583
  • 12 Zemouri C, Volgenant CM, Buijs MJ. et al. Dental aerosols: microbial composition and spatial distribution. J Oral Microbiol 2020; 12 (01) 1762040
  • 13 Ali AA, Altemimi AB, Alhelfi N, Ibrahim SA. Application of biosensors for detection of pathogenic food bacteria: a review. Biosensors (Basel) 2020; 10 (06) E58
  • 14 Mulvey D, Redding P, Robertson C. et al. Finding a benchmark for monitoring hospital cleanliness. J Hosp Infect 2011; 77 (01) 25-30
  • 15 Volgenant CM, Persoon IF, de Ruijter RAG, de Soet JJH. Infection control in dental health care during and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Oral Dis 2020; 11
  • 16 OBF. OBF. Available at: Accessed April 27, 2020
  • 17 Lloro V, Lozano-de Luaces V, Lloro I, Manzanares MC. The incidence of dental needs during isolated missions compared to non-isolated missions: a systematic review and implications for future prevention strategies. Mil Med 2019; 184 (3-4) e148-e155
  • 18 Lloro Boada VA, Lloro Boada I. inventors; dispositivo auxiliar para procedimiento odontológico, método y usos del mismo. Spain patent application ES 2 601 486 B1. Available at: Accessed 2017
  • 19 Eliades T, Koletsi D. Minimizing the aerosol-generating procedures in orthodontics in the era of a pandemic: current evidence on the reduction of hazardous effects for the treatment team and patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2020; 158 (03) 330-342
  • 20 Koletsi D, Belibasakis GN, Eliades T. Interventions to reduce aerosolized microbes in dental practice: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Dent Res 2020; 99 (11) 1228-1238
  • 21 Ho YH, Wang LS, Jiang HL. et al. Use of a sampling area-adjusted adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay based on digital image quantification to assess the cleanliness of hospital surfaces. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13 (06) E576
  • 22 Bennett AM, Fulford MR, Walker JT, Bradshaw DJ, Martin MV, Marsh PD. Microbial aerosols in general dental practice. Br Dent J 2000; 189 (12) 664-667
  • 23 Otter JA, Donskey C, Yezli S, Douthwaite S, Goldenberg SD, Weber DJ. Transmission of SARS and MERS coronaviruses and influenza virus in healthcare settings: the possible role of dry surface contamination. J Hosp Infect 2016; 92 (03) 235-250
  • 24 Hamid H, Khurshid Z, Adanir N, Zafar MS, Zohaib S. COVID-19 pandemic and role of human saliva as a testing biofluid in point-of-care technology. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (S 01) S123-S129
  • 25 To KK, Tsang OT, Leung WS. et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20 (05) 565-574
  • 26 Prather KA, Wang CC, Schooley RT. Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Science 2020; 368 (6498) 1422-1424
  • 27 Bizzoca ME, Campisi G, Muzio LL. Covid-19 pandemic: what changes for dentists and oral medicine experts? A narrative review and novel approaches to infection containment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17 (11) E3793
  • 28 Cook TM. Personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease (COVID) 2019 pandemic - a narrative review. Anaesthesia 2020; 75 (07) 920-927
  • 29 Avasth A. High volume evacuator (HVE) in reducing aerosol- an exploration worth by clinicians. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2018; ; 9( (03) 165-166
  • 30 Desarda H, Gurav A, Dharmadhikari C, Shete A, Gaikwad S. Efficacy of high-volume evacuator in aerosol reduction: truth or myth? a clinical and microbiological study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2014; ; 8( (03) 176-179
  • 31 Lönnroth EC, Shahnavaz H. Users’ demands regarding dental safety glasses. Combining a quantitative approach and grounded theory for the data analysis. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2001; ; 7( (01) 49-59
  • 32 Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJ. COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020; 395 (10242) 1973-1987
  • 33 Farrier SL, Farrier JN, Gilmour AS. Eye safety in operative dentistry - a study in general dental practice. Br Dent J 2006; 200 (04) 218-223, discussion 208
  • 34 El-Boghdadly K, Wong DJN, Owen R. et al. Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study. Anaesthesia 2020; 75 (11) 1437-1447
  • 35 Wu V, Noel CW, Forner D. et al. Considerations for head and neck oncology practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Wuhan and Toronto experience. Head Neck 2020; 42 (06) 1202-1208
  • 36 Mick P, Murphy R. Aerosol-generating otolaryngology procedures and the need for enhanced PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 49 (01) 29
  • 37 Herman JA, Urits I, Kaye AD, Urman RD, Viswanath O. COVID-19: Anesthesia Management Recommendations. J Clin Anesth 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.109840.
  • 38 Dave M, Seoudi N, Coulthard P. Urgent dental care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020; 395 (10232) 1257
  • 39 Farook FF, Mohamed Nuzaim MN, Taha Ababneh K, Alshammari A, Alkadi L. COVID-19 pandemic: oral health challenges and recommendations. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (S 01) S165-S170
  • 40 Ong SWX, Tan YK, Chia PY. et al. Air, surface environmental, and personal protective equipment contamination by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from a symptomatic patient. JAMA 2020; 323 (16) 1610-1612