Skip to main content

Table 1 Statistical comparisons of suction devices

From: Aerosol reduction efficacy of different intra-oral suction devices during ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpiece use

Suction device comparisons

Single sensor setup

Dual sensor setup

Ultrasonic scaling

HVE vs Purevac (−H)

–

–

HVE vs Purevac (+H)

–

–

HVE vs LVE

–

**

HVE vs ReLeaf

–

**

HVE vs DryShield

–

–

Purevac (−H) vs. Purevac (+H)

–

–

Purevac (−H) vs. LVE

–

***

Purevac (−H) vs. ReLeaf

–

***

Purevac (−H) vs. DryShield

–

–

Purevac (+H) vs. LVE

*

**

Purevac (+H) vs. ReLeaf

–

***

Purevac (+H) vs. DryShield

–

–

LVE vs. ReLeaf

–

–

LVE vs. DryShield

–

–

ReLeaf vs. DryShield

–

–

High-speed handpiece

HVE vs. Purevac (−H)

–

–

HVE vs. Purevac (+H)

–

–

HVE vs. DryShield

***

*

Purevac (−H) vs. Purevac (+H)

–

–

Purevac (−H) vs. DryShield

***

*

Purevac (+H) vs. DryShield

***

–

  1. Table showing a statistical comparison of the normalised particle counts in both the ultrasonic scaling and high-speed handpiece procedures, for all the suction devices: Standard high-volume suction (‘HVE’); Purevac® HVE Mirror Tip connected directly to the suction port (‘Purevac (−H)’); Purevac® HVE System which included the lightweight hose and adapter (‘Purevac (+H)’); Standard low volume suction (‘LVE’); Ivory® ReLeaf™ hands-free suction device (‘ReLeaf’); DryShield® Isolation System (‘DryShield’). Statistical comparison excludes no suction. All suction devices showed a statistically significant reduction in normalised particle count vs no suction (data not shown) (p < 0.001). Statistical analysis was carried out using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test
  2. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, '–' not significant