Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 13;2020(10):CD013686. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013686.pub2

Summary of findings 2. Comparison 2. HVE compared to conventional dental suction for reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols.

HVE compared to conventional dental suction for reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols
Population: people undergoing aerosol generating procedures
Setting: closed dental operatory
Intervention: HVE
Comparison: conventional dental suction
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) Number of participants
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Risk with conventional dental suction Risk with HVE
Rate of infection of dental staff or patients Not reported
Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment Not reported
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols
during ultrasonic scaling
at 40 cm
The mean CFU level was 4.30 MD 2.30 CFU lower
(5.32 lower to 0.72 higher) 6
(1 RCT)a ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1  
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols
during ultrasonic scaling
at 150 cm
The mean CFU level was 10.30 MD 2.20 CFU lower
(14.01 lower to 9.61 higher) 6
(1 RCT)a ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CFU: colony forming units; CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomized controlled trial
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHigh certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

aTimmerman 2004

1. Downgraded 2 levels for imprecision due to small sample size reported in a single study and 1 level for unclear risk of selection, detection and reporting bias