LAUSR

Objectives The study aimed to analyze different ways to control air quality during/after aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a small skills lab with restricted natural air ventilation in preclinical dental training (worst-case scenario for aerogen infection control). Different phases were investigated (AGP1: intraoral high-volume evacuation (HVE); AGP2: HVE plus an extraoral mobile scavenger (EOS)) and afterward (non-AGP1: air conditioning system (AC), non-AGP2: AC plus opened door). Methods Continuous data collection was performed for PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 (µg/m3), CO2 concentration (ppm), temperature (K), and humidity (h−1) during two summer days (AGP: n = 30; non-AGP: n = 30). While simulating our teaching routine, no base level for air parameters was defined. Therefore, the change in each parameter (Δ = [post]-[pre] per hour) was calculated. Results We found significant differences in ΔPM2.5 and ΔPM1 values (median (25/75th percentiles)) comparing AGP2 versus AGP1 (ΔPM2.5: 1.6(0/4.9)/−3.5(−10.0/−1.1), p=0.003; ΔPM1: 1.6(0.6/2.2)/−2.2(−9.3/−0.5), p=0.001). Between both non-AGPs, there were no significant differences in all the parameters that were measured. ΔCO2 increased in all AGP phases (AGP1/AGP2: 979.0(625.7/1126.9)/549.9(4.0/788.8)), while during non-AGP phases, values decreased (non-AGP1/non-AGP2: −447.3(−1122.3/641.2)/−896.6(−1307.3/−510.8)). ∆Temperature findings were similar (AGP1/AGP2: 12.5(7.8/17.0)/9.3(1.8/15.3) versus non-AGP1/non-AGP2: −13.1(−18.7/0)/−14.7(−16.8/−6.8); p ≤ 0.003)), while for ∆humidity, no significant difference (p > 0.05) was found. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, the combination of HVE and EOS was similarly effective in controlling aerosol emissions of particles between one and ten micrometers in skill labs during AGPs versus that during non-AGPs. After AGPs, air exchange with the AC should be complemented by open doors for better air quality if natural ventilation through open windows is restricted.