28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A scoping review of surgical masks and N95 filtering facepiece respirators: Learning from the past to guide the future of dentistry

      research-article
      , , *
      Safety Science
      Elsevier Ltd.
      N95 respirator, Surgical facemask, Infectious disease transmission, Evidence-based review, ADA, American Dental Association, ASTM, American Society of Testing Materials, CDC, Center for Disease Control, FDA, Food and Drug Administration, NASIOM, National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, WHO, World Health Organization, ARI, Acute Respiratory Infections, CRI, Confirmed respiratory infection, COVID-19, Coronavirus Disease, first detected in 2019, DHCP, Dental Health Care Practitioner, ER, Emergency Room, FFR, Filtering Facepiece Respirators, H1N1, H1N1 Subtype of Influenza-A, HCW, Healthcare Workers, HVE, High-Volume Evacuation, ICP, Infection Control Protocol, ILI, Influenza-like Illness, LCI, Laboratory-confirmed Influenza, MERS, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (a coronavirus formally identified in 2012), N95, Non-oil-resistant, filtering facepiece respirator filtering 95% of airborne particles, PPE, Personal protective equipment, RCT, Randomized Controlled Trial, SARS, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (a coronavirus formally identified in 2003

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • N95 respirators are equivalent to type 3 face masks in preventing infection transmission.

          • Proper donning and doffing is critical for safe use of PPE.

          • Face shields should be used only in combination with lower face protection.

          • High volume evacuation helps to limit the production of aerosolized particles at the source.

          Abstract

          With the 2019 emergence of coronavirus disease 19 (colloquially called COVID-19) came renewed public concern about airborne and aerosolized virus transmission. Accompanying this concern were many conflicting dialogues about which forms of personal protective equipment best protect dental health care practitioners and their patients from viral exposure. In this comprehensive review we provide a thorough and critical assessment of face masks and face shields, some of the most frequently recommended personal safeguards against viral infection.

          We begin by describing the function and practicality of the most common mask types used in dentistry: procedural masks, surgical masks, and filtering respirator facemasks (also called N95s). This is followed by a critical assessment of mask use based on a review of published evidence in three key domains: the degree to which each mask type is shown to protect against airborne and aerosolized disease, the reported likelihood for non-compliance among mask users, and risk factors associated with both proper and improper mask use. We use this information to conclude our review with several practical, evidence-based recommendations for mask use in dental and dental educational clinics.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Skin damage among health care workers managing coronavirus disease-2019

          To the Editor: Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in December 2019, more than 200,000 health care workers from all over China have been participating in the fight against this highly contagious disease in Hubei province, which is the center of infection in China. Skin damage caused by enhanced infection-prevention measures among health care workers, which could reduce their enthusiasm for overloaded work and make them anxious, has been reported frequently. Previous studies have revealed that hand eczema is quite common in health care workers, 1 , 2 and the risk factors include frequent hand hygiene and wearing gloves for a long time. 3 , 4 Considering the frequent hand hygiene and long-time wearing of tertiary protective devices (N95 mask, goggles, face shield, and double layers of gloves) among health care workers during the epidemic period of COVID-19, we aimed to estimate the prevalence, clinical features, and risk factors of this skin damage among them. From January to February 2020, self-administered online questionnaires were distributed to 700 individuals, consisting of physicians and nurses who worked in the designated departments of tertiary hospitals in Hubei, China. The questionnaire included questions about the condition of skin damage and the frequency or duration of several infection-prevention measures (Supplemental Material 1, available via Mendeley at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/zknvry83v5/2). Finally, 542 individuals (Supplemental Material 2) completed the study (response rate, 77.4%), with 71.4% (387 of 542) working in isolation wards and 28.6% (155 of 542) working in fever clinics. The general prevalence rate of skin damage caused by enhanced infection-prevention measures was 97.0% (526 of 542) among first-line health care workers. The affected sites included the nasal bridge, hands, cheek, and forehead, with the nasal bridge the most commonly affected (83.1%). Among a series of symptoms and signs, dryness/tightness and desquamation were the most common symptom (70.3%) and sign (62.2%), respectively (Table I ). The health care workers who wore some medical devices more than 6 hours had higher risks of skin damage in corresponding sites than those who did for less time (N95 masks: odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-3.01; P  10 times daily) hand hygiene could increase the risk of hand skin damage (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.38-3.43; P  6 h/d 317 (58.5) Cheek: 259 (81.7) 2.02 1.35-3.01 6 h/d 265 (58.8) Nasal bridge: 233 (87.9) 2.32 1.41-3.83 6 h/d 157 (59.2) Forehead: 92 (58.6) 1.52 0.93-2.50 .66 Gloves 113∗ ≤6 h/d 52 (46.0) Hands: 29 (55.8) 1 [Ref] >6 h/d 61 (54.0) Hands: 39 (63.9) 1.41 0.66-3.00 .44 321† ≤6 h/d 131 (40.8) Hands: 100 (76.3) 1 [Ref] >6 h/d 190 (59.2) Hands: 146 (76.8) 1.03 0.61-1.74 >.99 Hand hygiene 434 ≤10 times/d 113 (26.0) Hands: 68 (60.2) 1 [Ref] >10 times/d 321 (74.0) Hands: 246 (76.6) 2.17 1.38-3.43 10 times/d. Our study has some limitations. Firstly, we only studied 1 site with a single exposure factor, but some sites could be related to more than 1 factor. The nasal bridge, for example, could be compressed by the N95 mask and goggles simultaneously, although goggles were the main factor. Secondly, possible risk factors such as participants wearing the N95 mask after work in daily life were not included. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that the prevalence of skin damage of first-line health care workers was very high. Moreover, we found that longer exposure time was a significant risk factor, which highlights that the working time of first-line staff should be arranged reasonably. Besides, prophylactic dressings could be considered to alleviate the device-related pressure injuries, according to a prior study. 5
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            N95 Respirators vs Medical Masks for Preventing Influenza Among Health Care Personnel

            Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Surgical mask vs N95 respirator for preventing influenza among health care workers: a randomized trial.

              Data about the effectiveness of the surgical mask compared with the N95 respirator for protecting health care workers against influenza are sparse. Given the likelihood that N95 respirators will be in short supply during a pandemic and not available in many countries, knowing the effectiveness of the surgical mask is of public health importance. To compare the surgical mask with the N95 respirator in protecting health care workers against influenza. Noninferiority randomized controlled trial of 446 nurses in emergency departments, medical units, and pediatric units in 8 tertiary care Ontario hospitals. Assignment to either a fit-tested N95 respirator or a surgical mask when providing care to patients with febrile respiratory illness during the 2008-2009 influenza season. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza measured by polymerase chain reaction or a 4-fold rise in hemagglutinin titers. Effectiveness of the surgical mask was assessed as noninferiority of the surgical mask compared with the N95 respirator. The criterion for noninferiority was met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the reduction in incidence (N95 respirator minus surgical group) was greater than -9%. Between September 23, 2008, and December 8, 2008, 478 nurses were assessed for eligibility and 446 nurses were enrolled and randomly assigned the intervention; 225 were allocated to receive surgical masks and 221 to N95 respirators. Influenza infection occurred in 50 nurses (23.6%) in the surgical mask group and in 48 (22.9%) in the N95 respirator group (absolute risk difference, -0.73%; 95% CI, -8.8% to 7.3%; P = .86), the lower confidence limit being inside the noninferiority limit of -9%. Among nurses in Ontario tertiary care hospitals, use of a surgical mask compared with an N95 respirator resulted in noninferior rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00756574
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Saf Sci
                Saf Sci
                Safety Science
                Elsevier Ltd.
                0925-7535
                0925-7535
                6 August 2020
                November 2020
                6 August 2020
                : 131
                : 104920
                Affiliations
                Midwestern University College of Dental Medicine, AZ, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Midwestern University, College of Dental Medicine – AZ, 19555 N 59 th Avenue, Glendale, AZ 85308, United States. Jmitch@ 123456midwestern.edu
                Article
                S0925-7535(20)30317-9 104920
                10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104920
                7406415
                32834515
                03c334e5-ff32-4d1a-8e7b-012eccdf5706
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 5 May 2020
                : 14 July 2020
                : 15 July 2020
                Categories
                Article

                n95 respirator,surgical facemask,infectious disease transmission,evidence-based review,ada, american dental association,astm, american society of testing materials,cdc, center for disease control,fda, food and drug administration,nasiom, national academy of sciences’ institute of medicine,niosh, national institute for occupational safety and health,osha, occupational safety and health administration,who, world health organization,ari, acute respiratory infections,cri, confirmed respiratory infection,covid-19, coronavirus disease, first detected in 2019,dhcp, dental health care practitioner,er, emergency room,ffr, filtering facepiece respirators,h1n1, h1n1 subtype of influenza-a,hcw, healthcare workers,hve, high-volume evacuation,icp, infection control protocol,ili, influenza-like illness,lci, laboratory-confirmed influenza,mers, middle east respiratory syndrome (a coronavirus formally identified in 2012),n95, non-oil-resistant, filtering facepiece respirator filtering 95% of airborne particles,ppe, personal protective equipment,rct, randomized controlled trial,sars, severe acute respiratory syndrome (a coronavirus formally identified in 2003

                Comments

                Comment on this article