Background: Dental procedures often produce aerosol and splatter which have the potential to transmit pathogens such as SARS‐CoV‐2. The existing literature is limited.Objective(s): To develop a robust, reliable and valid methodology to evaluate distribution and persistence of dental aerosol and splatter, including the evaluation of clinical procedures.Methods: Fluorescein was introduced into the irrigation reservoirs of a high‐speed air‐turbine, ultrasonic scaler and 3‐in‐1 spray, and procedures were performed on a mannequin in triplicate. Filter papers were placed in the immediate environment. The impact of dental suction and assistant presence were also evaluated. Samples were analysed using photographic image analysis and spectrofluorometric analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated and Pearson's correlation for comparison of analytic methods.Results: All procedures were aerosol and splatter generating. Contamination was highest closest to the source, remaining high to 1‐1.5 m. Contamination was detectable at the maximum distance measured (4 m) for high‐speed air‐turbine with maximum relative fluorescence units (RFU) being: 46,091 at 0.5 m, 3,541 at 1.0 m and 1,695 at 4 m. There was uneven spatial distribution with highest levels of contamination opposite the operator. Very low levels of contamination (≤0.1% of original) were detected at 30 and 60 minutes post‐procedure. Suction reduced contamination by 67‐75% at 0.5‐1.5 m. Mannequin and operator were heavily contaminated. The two analytic methods showed good correlation (r = 0.930, n = 244, P < .001).Conclusion: Dental procedures have potential to deposit aerosol and splatter at some distance from the source, being effectively cleared by 30 minutes in our setting.

Novel nicotine products, particularly electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), have become increasingly popular over the past decade. E-cigarettes are sometimes regarded as a less harmful alternative to tobacco smoking, and there is some evidence of their potential role as a smoking cessation aid. However, there are concerns about their health consequences, particularly in users who are not tobacco smokers, and also when used long term. Given the mode of delivery of these products, there is potential for oral health consequences. Over the past few years, there have been an increasing number of studies conducted to explore their oral health effects. In vitro studies have reported a range of cellular effects, but these are much less pronounced than those resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke. Microbiological studies have indicated that e-cigarette users have a distinct microbiome, and there is some indication this may be more pathogenic compared to nonusers. Evidence of oral health effects from clinical trials is still limited, and most studies to date have been small in scale and usually cross-sectional in design. Epidemiological studies highlight concerns over oral dryness, irritation, and gingival diseases. Interpreting data from e-cigarette studies is challenging, given the different populations that have been investigated and the continual emergence of new products. Overall, studies reveal potential oral health harms, underscoring the importance of efforts to reduce use in nonsmokers. However, in smokers who are using e-cigarettes as an aid to help them quit, the benefits of quitting tobacco smoking may outweigh any negative oral health impacts of e-cigarette use, particularly in the short term. Future research is needed to understand the clinical significance of some of the biological changes observed by following different cohorts of users longitudinally in carefully designed clinical studies and pragmatic trials supported by high-quality in vitro studies.