File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106961
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85161087599
- WOS: WOS:001054797600001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Cross-infection risk assessment in dental clinic: Numerical investigation of emitted droplets during different atomization procedures
Title | Cross-infection risk assessment in dental clinic: Numerical investigation of emitted droplets during different atomization procedures |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) Cross-infection risk Dental atomization procedure Dental clinic Droplet |
Issue Date | 15-Sep-2023 |
Publisher | Elsevier |
Citation | Journal of Building Engineering, 2023, v. 75 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Cross-infection risk induced by the emitted droplets and bioaerosols during dental procedures has challenged service providers and patients alike. The present study aims to investigate the transmission mechanism of emitted droplets during the dental atomization procedures: vibration ultrasonic scaling (vUS) and rotation high-speed drilling (rHSD) and propose the risk assessment. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation was performed, and the experimentally recorded droplet velocity and diameter distribution during the atomization procedures were defined as initial boundary conditions. The droplet transmission in the dental clinic was analyzed from the final fate (deposition, suspension, and escape) and fallow time (FT) of emitted droplets. The results revealed that the diameter threshold for the droplet deposition and suspension was 60μm, and the fraction of deposited droplets would be stable at 79.5% for rHSD and 85% for vUS. The primary contamination distance was generally within 0.28 m and 0.4 m from the treatment position for the atomization procedures of rHSD and vUS, respectively. An increment of about 2% in the fraction of escaped droplets was noted when conducting the rHSD. The median of estimated FT for the atomization procedure of rHSD, 34 min, was longer than that of vUS, 30.6 min. In general, cross-infection risk during rHSD can be regarded as “higher” than vUS. The contribution of the present study can serve as guidance to decrease the cross-infection risk in dental clinics. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/331099 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 6.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.397 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Li, Xiujie | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mak, Cheuk Ming | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ai, Zhengtao | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ma, Kuen Wai | - |
dc.contributor.author | Wong, Hai Ming | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-09-21T06:52:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-09-21T06:52:44Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-09-15 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Building Engineering, 2023, v. 75 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2352-7102 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/331099 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p> Cross-infection risk induced by the emitted droplets and bioaerosols during dental procedures has challenged service providers and patients alike. The present study aims to investigate the transmission mechanism of emitted droplets during the dental atomization procedures: vibration ultrasonic scaling (vUS) and rotation high-speed drilling (rHSD) and propose the risk assessment. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation was performed, and the experimentally recorded droplet velocity and diameter distribution during the atomization procedures were defined as initial boundary conditions. The droplet transmission in the dental clinic was analyzed from the final fate (deposition, suspension, and escape) and fallow time (FT) of emitted droplets. The results revealed that the diameter threshold for the droplet deposition and suspension was 60μm, and the fraction of deposited droplets would be stable at 79.5% for rHSD and 85% for vUS. The primary contamination distance was generally within 0.28 m and 0.4 m from the treatment position for the atomization procedures of rHSD and vUS, respectively. An increment of about 2% in the fraction of escaped droplets was noted when conducting the rHSD. The median of estimated FT for the atomization procedure of rHSD, 34 min, was longer than that of vUS, 30.6 min. In general, cross-infection risk during rHSD can be regarded as “higher” than vUS. The contribution of the present study can serve as guidance to decrease the cross-infection risk in dental clinics. <br></p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Building Engineering | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) | - |
dc.subject | Cross-infection risk | - |
dc.subject | Dental atomization procedure | - |
dc.subject | Dental clinic | - |
dc.subject | Droplet | - |
dc.title | Cross-infection risk assessment in dental clinic: Numerical investigation of emitted droplets during different atomization procedures | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106961 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85161087599 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 75 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2352-7102 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:001054797600001 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 2352-7102 | - |