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

6. Comparison 8. Air cleaning system (ACS) compared to no ACS for reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols.

Air cleaning system (ACS) compared to no ACS for reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols
Population: people undergoing aerosol generating procedures
Setting: closed dental operatory and open clinical area
Intervention: air cleaning system (ACS)
Comparison: no ACS
Outcomes Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) Relative effect
(95% CI) Number of sites
(studies) Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE) Comments
Risk with no ACS Risk with air cleaning system (ACS)
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 cavity preparation
The mean CFU level was 105.10 MD 66.70 CFU lower
(120.15 lower to 13.25 lower) 4
(1 CCT)a ⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 1  
Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols
during ultrasonic scaling
The mean CFU level was 70.9 MD 32.40 CFU lower
(51.55 lower to 13.25 lower) 4
(1 CCT)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

aHallier 2010

1. Begins at 'low' as non‐randomised evidence. Downgraded 1 level for unclear risk of detection bias and reporting bias and 2 levels for imprecision due to small sample size reported in a single study