6 ms·

This, and the fact that a sterilized robot is way less likely to transmit airborne pathogens than a dentist and an assistant wearing a surgical mask at best. Ma

This, and the fact that a sterilized robot is way less likely to transmit airborne pathogens than a dentist and an assistant wearing a surgical mask at best. Maybe not v.1.0b4, but I'd sign up for v.1.2.

mensetmanusman 2y ago
The technology exists to kill anything airborne immediately with UVC light, this will be deployed long before robot dentists.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
Less likely to touch the mouse while looking at xrays. Can't imagine how many Germs are transfered between patients that way.
- simianparrot 2y ago
  Every dentist I go to use single-use thin nitril or similar gloves. If they have to use any of the non-sterilisable equipment (like the mouse or kb), they take said glove off before use and put on a new one after. I mean that’s just common sense, surely.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    Common sense would mean that my local butchers and fishmongers would not handover money and manipulate raw meat/fish with the same nitrile gloves and either employ an assistant or use a dedicated machine for that but they do not.
    - simianparrot 2y ago
      They do here but Norway has a functional balance of regulations and fines for this kind of stuff. Sometimes it’s too strict though but I certainly appreciate it.
enumjorge 2y ago
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is this a known issue? As in, are dental offices a higher risk location for diseases to spread?
- worstspotgain 2y ago
  Well your mucosa is more exposed than it normally is. Your mouth is acting like a receptacle, particularly when you're not wearing a dental dam. The probability that a larger pathogen-containing droplet will randomly fall in is much higher. Larger droplets normally fall straight to the ground. Smaller droplets can be sucked in by breathing in no matter what, so the probability for those is equivalent to just being near someone. However, depending on the pathogen, risk can scale much more than linearly with droplet size. Overall risk is probably in the ballpark of an unmasked in-your-face shouting match with someone. Then as someone else mentioned, any fomites can transfer from anything non-sterile that the dentist or assistant touches. There can also be aerosol-generating procedures in other rooms, though the robot wouldn't help there (they'd need a negative air pressure system.) This discusses some of the risks, but mostly from the standpoint of protecting the providers from the patients: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589669/
  - n4r9 2y ago
    I think OP was wondering whether any studies have been done to demonstrate a correlation between dental operations and infections. It does seem needless to worry about it until you have some idea of effect size.
    - worstspotgain 2y ago
      Those are likely to be pathogen-specific. The paper I linked for instance has a reference that dentists have a 10x risk of chronic Hep B than the rest of the population, but that doesn't translate to Hep C.
  - veunes 2y ago
    And some patients visiting dental offices may have compromised immune systems

mensetmanusman 2y ago

The technology exists to kill anything airborne immediately with UVC light, this will be deployed long before robot dentists.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

Less likely to touch the mouse while looking at xrays. Can't imagine how many Germs are transfered between patients that way.

simianparrot 2y ago
Every dentist I go to use single-use thin nitril or similar gloves. If they have to use any of the non-sterilisable equipment (like the mouse or kb), they take said glove off before use and put on a new one after. I mean that’s just common sense, surely.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- prmoustache 2y ago
  Common sense would mean that my local butchers and fishmongers would not handover money and manipulate raw meat/fish with the same nitrile gloves and either employ an assistant or use a dedicated machine for that but they do not.
  - simianparrot 2y ago
    They do here but Norway has a functional balance of regulations and fines for this kind of stuff. Sometimes it’s too strict though but I certainly appreciate it.

enumjorge 2y ago

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is this a known issue? As in, are dental offices a higher risk location for diseases to spread?

worstspotgain 2y ago
Well your mucosa is more exposed than it normally is. Your mouth is acting like a receptacle, particularly when you're not wearing a dental dam. The probability that a larger pathogen-containing droplet will randomly fall in is much higher. Larger droplets normally fall straight to the ground. Smaller droplets can be sucked in by breathing in no matter what, so the probability for those is equivalent to just being near someone. However, depending on the pathogen, risk can scale much more than linearly with droplet size. Overall risk is probably in the ballpark of an unmasked in-your-face shouting match with someone. Then as someone else mentioned, any fomites can transfer from anything non-sterile that the dentist or assistant touches. There can also be aerosol-generating procedures in other rooms, though the robot wouldn't help there (they'd need a negative air pressure system.) This discusses some of the risks, but mostly from the standpoint of protecting the providers from the patients: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589669/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK589669/
- n4r9 2y ago
  I think OP was wondering whether any studies have been done to demonstrate a correlation between dental operations and infections. It does seem needless to worry about it until you have some idea of effect size.
  - worstspotgain 2y ago
    Those are likely to be pathogen-specific. The paper I linked for instance has a reference that dentists have a 10x risk of chronic Hep B than the rest of the population, but that doesn't translate to Hep C.
- veunes 2y ago
  And some patients visiting dental offices may have compromised immune systems