Background. Up-to-date studies are needed on the protection provided by face masks used by dentists. We assessed the relative filtering efficacy of two currently used surgical face masks (one a molded mask, the other a tie-on mask) and a certified personal particulate respirator, all made by a single manufacturer.
Methods. The authors sprayed bicarbonate particulate against a porcelain surface (representing the patient’s mouth) and collected it via a mannequin head (representing the dentist’s head) placed 40 centimeters away and a tube with two airflow rates (0.5 cubic meters per hour and 9 m3/hour). They calculated the dry residue weight. They performed three separate runs for each mask and three runs with no mask at the two airflow rates with and without aerosol.
Results. With no mask (control), the authors recorded significant weight gains at both airflow rates with and without vaporization. With vaporization, the three masks were associated with different dry residue weights (P < .03 with the Kruskal-Wallis test at both flow rates), the respirator providing the lowest amount. The respirator provided an efficiency of 94 to 96 percent, compared with 90 to 92 percent and 85 to 86 percent for the molded and tie-on surgical masks, respectively.
Conclusions. These data provide independent evidence that a certified personal respirator can be more effective than high-quality surgical masks in dental settings.
Clinical Implications. Dentists should be aware that a certified particulate respirator can provide them with superior filtering protection.
