FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Equine veterinary journal2020; 53(5); 1036-1046; doi: 10.1111/evj.13379

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of operator inhaled aerosols during routine motorised equine dental treatment.

Abstract: Routine equine odontoplasty is performed by both Veterinary Surgeons and Equine Dental Technicians. The production of aerosolised particulates from motorised equipment has been well documented in human orthodontics but has yet to be investigated in the veterinary industry. Objective: To assess the size, quantity and composition of particulates produced during routine motorised odontoplasty and to model their deposition in the human respiratory tree. Methods: Analytic observational study. Methods: Fifteen-minute routine motorised odontoplasties were performed on cadaver heads with monitoring equipment placed 30 cm away from the oral cavity to simulate the position of the operator's face. For quantitative analysis, an active air sampling photometric monitor was used to detect the concentration of fully respirable (<4.25 µm) particles produced. The use of water and non-water-cooled equipment and 2 different types of face mask (standard surgical and FFP3) were compared. An 8-stage Marple Personal Cascade Impactor modelled the deposition of the particulates in relation to the human respiratory tree. Qualitative analysis of these particulates was performed using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy. Results: Motorised odontoplasty created aerosolised particulates that could reach all levels of the human respiratory tree. These particulates were composed mostly of calcium and phosphate, although traces of metals were found. The concentration of fully respirable particulates exceeded the recommended exposure limits set by the Health and Safety Executive. The use of an FFP-3 face mask significantly reduced the level of inhaled particulates. Conclusions: This was a simulated experiment. It does not take into account the variety of environments in which routine treatment takes place. Conclusions: There are possible health risks in performing a large amount of routine motorised dentistry due to inhalation of aerosolised particulates. The use of an adequate face mask lowers exposure levels to within acceptable limits and, therefore, should be worn.
© 2020 EVJ Ltd.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-11-30 PubMed ID: 33131087DOI: 10.1111/evj.13379Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Observational Study
  • Veterinary

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research study examined the size, quantity, and composition of aerosolized particulates produced during routine equine (horse) dental procedures performed with motorized equipment. They also examined their potential deposition in the human respiratory system. The study revealed that this procedure creates inhalable particles that can reach all areas of the human respiratory system, exposing the surgeon or technician to potential health risks. However, the use of a specific type of face mask, the FFP3, significantly reduced these risks.

Research Methodology

  • The research was carried out using an analytic observational study approach.
  • The experiment mimicked standard 15-minute equine dental treatments performed on horse cadaver heads employing motorized equipment.
  • The recording monitor was placed 30cm away from the horse’s mouth to simulate the position of a human’s face during treatment.
  • To gauge the concentration of fully inhalable particles, an active air sampling photometric monitor was employed. Various equipment configurations were compared, including water and non-water-cooled devices.
  • Two types of face masks, standard surgical and FFP3, were also compared for their effectiveness.
  • An 8-stage Marple Personal Cascade Impactor was used to model deposition of the particles in relation to the human respiratory system.
  • Scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy were utilized for a qualitative analysis of the particulates.

Research Findings

  • During horse dental procedures with motorized tools, aerosolized particulates can be created that can reach all areas of the human respiratory system. These mostly contained calcium and phosphate, although traces of metals were also found.
  • The concentration of respirable particulates exceeded the health and safety limits set by the Health and Safety Executive.
  • The FFP3 face mask was more effective at reducing inhaled particulates than the standard surgical mask.

Study Conclusions and Implications

  • The research was conducted under controlled, simulated conditions and does not take into account the variety of real-world environments in which routine treatments take place.
  • This means while its findings provide important insights, they may not perfectly represent actual treatment conditions.
  • Nonetheless, the study establishes potential health risks for those performing routine horse dentistry due to inhalation of aerosolized particulates.
  • It suggests that using an adequate face mask, specifically an FFP3, can lower exposure levels to within acceptable limits and is therefore recommended for those performing these procedures.

Cite This Article

APA
Bescoby SR, Davis SA, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. (2020). Quantitative and qualitative analysis of operator inhaled aerosols during routine motorised equine dental treatment. Equine Vet J, 53(5), 1036-1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13379

Publication

Equine veterinary journal
ISSN: 2042-3306
NlmUniqueID: 0173320
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 53
Issue: 5
Pages: 1036-1046

Researcher Affiliations

Bescoby, Sam R
  • Langford Vets Equine Department, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Davis, Sean A
  • School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Sherriff, Martyn
  • Child Dental Health, Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Ireland, Anthony J
  • Child Dental Health, Bristol Dental School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.

MeSH Terms

  • Aerosols
  • Animals
  • Dental Care / veterinary
  • Dust
  • Horses
  • Humans
  • Masks
  • Particle Size
  • Water

Grant Funding

  • European Veterinary Dental College and European Veterinary Dental Society

References

This article includes 22 references
  1. Simhofer H, Griss R, Zetner K. The use of oral endoscopy for detection of cheek teeth abnormalities in 300 horses. Vet J 2008;178(3):396-404.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2008.09.029google scholar: lookup
  2. Dixon PM, Tremaine WH, Pickles K, Kuhns L, Hawe C, Mccann J. Equine dental disease Part 3: A long-term study of 400 cases: Disorders of wear, traumatic damage and idiopathic fractures, tumours and miscellaneous disorders of the cheek teeth. Equine Vet J 2000;32(1):9-18.
    doi: 10.2746/042516400777612099google scholar: lookup
  3. Dixon PM, Andrew R, Brannon H, Burgess R, Gibson A, Little J. Survey of the provision of prophylactic dental care for horses in Great Britain and Ireland between 1999 and 2002. Vet Rec 2004;155(22):693-8.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.155.22.693google scholar: lookup
  4. British Association of Equine Dental Technicians. British Association of Equine Dental Technicians AGM Minutes 2019. 2019.
  5. Day CJ, Price R, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Inhalation of aerosols produced during the removal of fixed orthodontic appliances: A comparison of 4 enamel cleanup methods. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;133(1):11-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.049google scholar: lookup
  6. Johnston NJ, Price R, Day CJ, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of particulate production during simulated clinical orthodontic debonds. Dent Mater 2009;25(9):1155-62.
    doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.04.002google scholar: lookup
  7. Kim KH, Kabir E, Kabir S. A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. Environ Int 2015;74:136-43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.005google scholar: lookup
  8. Morakinyo OM, Mokgobu MI, Mukhola MS, Hunter RP. Health outcomes of exposure to biological and chemical components of inhalable and respirable particulate matter. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016;13(6):1-22.
    doi: 10.3390/ijerph13060592google scholar: lookup
  9. Day CJ, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry- A neglected menace. Dent Update 2006;33(10):3-7.
    doi: 10.12968/denu.2006.33.10.601google scholar: lookup
  10. CONCAWE. Report No. 99/60. The Health Effects of PM2.5. 1999.
  11. CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation). Workplace atmospheres: size fraction definitions for measurements of airborne particle concentrations. 1993.
  12. HSE. Dust in the workplace General principles of protection. HSE Books 2013;EH 44:1-11.
  13. Anderson JO, Thundiyil JG, Stolbach A. Clearing the Air: A Review of the Effects of Particulate Matter Air Pollution on Human Health. J Med Toxicol 2012;8(2):166-75.
    doi: 10.1007/s13181-011-0203-1google scholar: lookup
  14. Wei Y, Wang Y, Di Q, Choirat C, Wang Y, Koutrakis P. Short term exposure to fine particulate matter and hospital admission risks and costs in the Medicare population: Time stratified, case crossover study. BMJ 2019;367.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6258google scholar: lookup
  15. Goldman M, Kaplan DM. Comparing distributions by multiple testing across quantiles or CDF values. J Econom 2018;206(1):143-66.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2018.04.003google scholar: lookup
  16. Ireland AJ, Moreno T, Price R. Airborne particles produced during enamel cleanup after removal of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124(6):683-6.
    doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00623-1google scholar: lookup
  17. Health and Safety Executive. EH40/2005 Workplace exposure limits. Containing the list of workplace exposure limits for use with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended). 2018;2002:63.
  18. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Respiratory protective equipment at work. Pract Guid 2013;(HSG53 (Fourth edition)):1-59.
  19. Bennett AM, Fulford MR, Walker JT, Bradshaw DJ, Martin MV, Marsh PD. Occupational health: Microbial aerosols in general dental practice. Br Dent J 2000;189(12):664-7.
    doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800859google scholar: lookup
  20. Dawson M, Soro V, Dymock D, Price R, Griffiths H, Dudding T. Microbiological assessment of aerosol generated during debond of fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2016;150(5):831-8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.04.022google scholar: lookup
  21. Fang SC, Cassidy A, David CC. A systematic review of occupational exposure to particulate matter and cardiovascular disease. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010;7(4):1773-806.
    doi: 10.3390/ijerph7041773google scholar: lookup
  22. Ghio AJ, Kim C, Devlin RB. Pulmonary inflammation in healthy human volunteers. Crit Care Med 2000;162(3):981-8.

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Clarysse M, Bertier P, Verpaele S, Madsen AM, Vlaminck L. Analysis of dental dust and aerosol emissions during odontoplasty: assessing potential respiratory health risks. Ann Work Expo Health 2025 Aug 1;69(7):752-764.
    doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxaf033pubmed: 40583264google scholar: lookup
  2. Stähli A, Nhan RF, Schäfer JM, Imber JC, Roccuzzo A, Sculean A, Schimmel M, Tennert C, Eick S. Contamination of Dental Surgical Masks by Aerosols Generated During Different Dental Treatments. Oral Health Prev Dent 2024 Dec 3;22:631-638.
    doi: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b5866891pubmed: 39625349google scholar: lookup
  3. Graetz C, Hülsbeck V, Düffert P, Schorr S, Straßburger M, Geiken A, Dörfer CE, Cyris M. Influence of flow rate and different size of suction cannulas on splatter contamination in dentistry: results of an exploratory study with a high-volume evacuation system. Clin Oral Investig 2022 Sep;26(9):5687-5696.
    doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04525-7pubmed: 35536440google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,850 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.