Surgical aerosol mitigation tool

Abstract

An aerosol mitigation apparatus and method of use. The apparatus includes an inlet structure having a base portion with a tapered or conical interior surface configured to direct aerosol toward a central region. The inlet structure may further include a central flow guide and a plurality of flow-directing elements extending between the base portion and the flow guide to define flow channels for guiding aerosol into a fluidic channel. The fluidic channel extends from the inlet structure to an outlet configured for connection to a vacuum source. In some embodiments, the apparatus further includes a first arm member and a second arm member spaced apart to define a receiving region dimensioned to engage an anatomical feature, such as a cheek, lip, or tongue, or a portion of an intraoral device.

Description

[0001] SURGICAL AEROSOL MITIGATION TOOL PRIORITY INFORMATION This nonprovisional application claims priority to provisional application No.63 / 689,442, entitled “Surgical Aerosol Mitigation Tool,” filed Aug.30, 2024, by the same inventor(s). FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present disclosure relates to an apparatus and / or system for the mitigation of aerosols during oral surgery. BACKGROUND Adenotonsillectomy is performed in over 500,000 pediatric patients every year, with electrocautery being the predominant tool used to perform this procedure. Electrocautery’s high-temperature tissue ablation produces aerosols at significant levels throughout the procedure, which may not be adequately addressed by current mitigation methods and personal protective equipment. Furthermore, it has been previously shown that surgical aerosols have the potential to transmit viable SARS-CoV-2 virus to operating room personnel during aerosol-generating procedures like adenotonsillectomy. Accordingly, there is a need for a device that can effectively mitigate aerosols generated during adenotonsillectomy. However, in view of the art considered as a whole at the time the present invention was made, it was not obvious to those of ordinary skill in the field of this invention how the shortcomings of the prior art could be overcome. All referenced publications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Furthermore, where a definition or use of a term in a reference, which is incorporated by reference herein, is inconsistent or contrary to the definition of that term provided herein, the definition of that term provided herein applies and the definition of that term in the reference does not apply. While certain aspects of conventional technologies have been discussed to facilitate disclosureof the invention, Applicants in no way disclaim these technical aspects, and it is contemplatedthat the claimed invention may encompass one or more of the conventional technical aspects discussed herein. The present invention may address one or more of the problems and deficiencies of the prior art discussed above. However, it is contemplated that the invention may prove useful in addressing other problems and deficiencies in a number of technical areas. Therefore, the claimed invention should not necessarily be construed as limited to addressing any of the particular problems or deficiencies discussed herein. In this specification, where a document, act or item of knowledge is referred to or discussed, this reference or discussion is not an admission that the document, act or item of knowledge or any combination thereof was at the priority date, publicly available, known to the public, part of common general knowledge, or otherwise constitutes prior art under the applicable statutory provisions; or is known to be relevant to an attempt to solve any problem with which this specification is concerned. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The long-standing but heretofore unfulfilled need for a device that can effectively mitigate aerosols generated during intraoral aerosol generating procedures is now met by a new, useful, and nonobvious invention. In various embodiments, a surgical aerosol mitigation tool is used during oral operations to reduce surgically generated aerosols from exiting the patient and exposing medical professionals to aerosols. Conventional methods of aerosol mitigation during aerosol- generating operations involve the surgeon relying on external suction at the oral commissure, usually held by the assistant. With the additional concerns of SARS-CoV-2 transmission or other viral transmission, an external smoke evacuator may be mandated for use near the face to supplement the hand-held suction at the oral commissure. The rationale was that any aerosols that escaped the first suction would be captured by the smoke evacuator. The surgical aerosol mitigation tool described herein results in a dramatic increase in the capture of aerosols when compared to external oral commissure suction. In some embodiments, an aerosol mitigation apparatus includes a body configured for attachment to a tongue blade, an inlet structure positioned at a distal end of the body, and a fluidic channel extending from the inlet structure to an outlet configured for connection to a vacuum source. The inlet structure has a base portion with a conical interior surface that tapers inwardly toward the fluidic channel and is configured to capture aerosol from a surgical site and convey the aerosol through the fluidic channel to the outlet. In some embodiments, the inlet structure further comprises a central flow guide disposed withinthe base portion. The central flow guide may be a biconical structure comprising two conicalsections joined at their bases, with one cone projecting upward from the base portion and the other cone projecting downward into the base portion. Some embodiments further comprise a plurality of flow-directing elements disposed at least partially within or adjacent to the inlet structure. In other embodiments, a plurality of vanes extend between the interior surface of the base portion and the central flow guide, the vanes defining flow channels for directing aerosol into the fluidic channel. In some embodiments, the outlet comprises a hose adapter configured to receive and retain a vacuum hose. The inlet structure is intended to be oriented to face toward the surgical site when the apparatus is attached to the tongue blade. The inlet structure may also have a height that is less than or equal to 15 mm. Some embodiments includes a tongue depressor having a planar surface with a top surface and a bottom surface. The bottom surface may be configured to be tongue facing. The aerosol mitigation system further includes an aerosol mitigation attachment that is coupled to the tongue depressor. The aerosol mitigation attachment includes at least one aerosol receiving portion and a hose adapter coupled to the aerosol receiving portion. The aerosols received by the aerosol receiving portion may pass through the hose adapter. In some embodiments, an aerosol mitigation apparatus includes a first arm member and a second arm member spaced apart to define a receiving region dimensioned to receive and engage an anatomical feature or a portion of an intraoral device, a connecting portion coupling the first and second arm members, an inlet structure positioned at a distal end of the first armmember, and a fluidic channel extending from the inlet structure to an outlet configured forconnection to a vacuum source. The inlet structure has a base portion with a conical interior surface that tapers inwardly toward the fluidic channel and is configured to capture aerosol from a surgical site and convey the aerosol through the fluidic channel to the outlet. In some embodiments, the apparatus further comprises a plurality of flow-directing elements disposed at least partially within or adjacent to the base portion of the inlet structure. The inlet structure may further comprise a central flow guide disposed within the base portion, which may be a biconical structure comprising two conical sections joined at their bases. The apparatus may also include a plurality of vanes extending between the base portion and the central flow guide, the vanes defining flow channels for directing aerosol into the fluidic channel. In some embodiments, the first and second arm members are biased toward one another to gently retain the anatomical feature or device portion in the receiving region, which may be dimensioned to have a position of repose less than the thickness of a patient cheek, such as less than or equal to 6.2 mm. In some embodiments, the fluidic channel extends through both arm members. The outlet may be configured for connection to a vacuum hose, and the inlet structure may be oriented to face toward the surgical site when the receiving region engages the anatomical feature or device portion. The first arm member may be concave such that an inner surface curves inward toward the receiving region, and the inlet structure may have a height that is less than or equal to 15 mm. The present invention also include a method of mitigating aerosol during an intraoral procedure. The method includes acquiring an aerosol mitigation apparatus having a first arm member and a second arm member spaced apart to define a receiving region, inserting an anatomical feature of a patient or a portion of an intraoral device into the receiving region such that the first and second arm members engage and retain the anatomical feature or device portion, orienting an inlet structure of the apparatus toward a surgical site within the patient’s oral cavity, wherein the inlet structure has a base portion with a conical interior surface that tapers inwardly toward a fluidic channel, coupling an outlet of the apparatus to a vacuum source, and operating the vacuum source to draw aerosol through the inlet structure and the fluidic channel of the apparatus to the outlet. In some embodiments, the first and second arm members are biased toward one another to gently retain the anatomical feature or portion of the intraoral device in the receiving region. The receiving region may be dimensioned to have a position of repose less than the thicknessof a patient cheek, such as less than or equal to 6.2 mm and / or between approximately 3 mmand 40 mm. In some embodiments, the inlet structure includes a central flow guide disposed within the base portion, which may be a biconical structure. The method may further include directing aerosol into the fluidic channel through a plurality of vanes in the inlet structure. In some embodiments, the fluidic channel extends through both arm members, the first arm member is concave such that an inner surface curves inward toward the receiving region, and / or the inlet structure has a height that is less than or equal to 15 mm. These and other important objects, advantages, and features of the invention will become clear as this disclosure proceeds. The invention accordingly comprises the features of construction, combination of elements, and arrangement of parts that will be exemplified in the disclosure set forth hereinafter and the scope of the invention will be indicated in the claims. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS For a fuller understanding of the invention, reference should be made to the following detailed description, taken in connection with the accompanying drawings, in which: Fig. 1A is a perspective view of the aerosol mitigation system according to various embodiments of the invention. Fig. 1B is a perspective view of the aerosol mitigation system according to various embodiments of the invention. Fig.2 is a graph that illustrates the effectiveness of particle evacuation by various methods. Figs.3A and 3B are graphs that illustrates the effectiveness of particle evacuation by various methods. Fig.4 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.5 is a side view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.6 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.7 is a side cross-sectional view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.8 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.9 is a side view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.10 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.11 is a side cross-sectional view of an embodiment of the present invention. Fig.12 is a perspective view of an embodiment of the inlet structure in isolation in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention.Fig. 13 is a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for the ratio difference in total particle count forparticles of size 0.5 micron (95% CI). For superiority, values > 1 indicate that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Fig. 14 is a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for the ratio difference in total particle count for particles of size 1 micron (95% CI). For superiority, values > 1 indicate that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Fig. 15 is a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for the ratio difference in total particle count for particles of size 2.5 microns (95% CI). For superiority, values > 1 indicate that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Fig. 16 is a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for the ratio difference in total particle count forparticles of size 4 micron (95% CI). For superiority, values > 1 indicate that the smokeevacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Fig. 17 is a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for the ratio difference in total particle count for particles of size ≥ 10 micron (95% CI). For superiority, values > 1 indicate that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Fig.18 is a graphical representation of the model-estimated mean Likert rating, with 95% CI bands, by smoke evacuation system. Fig.19 is a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for average difference in Likert ratings (95% CI). For superiority, negative values indicate that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION In the following detailed description of the present invention, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part thereof, and within which are shown by way of illustration specific embodiments by which the invention may be practiced. Numerous specific details are set forth to provide a thorough description of the embodiments of the present invention. It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that some embodiments may be practiced without some of these specific details. It is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized, and structural changes may be made without departing from the scope of the invention. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” include plural referents unless the content clearly dictates otherwise. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the term “or” is generally employed in its sense including “and / or” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. All numerical designations, such as measurements, efficacies, physical characteristics, forces, and other designations, including ranges, are approximations which are varied up or down by increments of 1.0 or 0.1, as appropriate. It is to be understood, even if it is not always explicitlystated that all numerical designations are preceded by the term “approximately.” As usedherein, “approximately” refers to being within an acceptable error range for the particular value as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, which will depend in part on how the value is measured or determined. When an acceptable range is not dictated by the one of ordinary skill in the art, “approximately” refers to ±15% of the numerical when used in connection withparticular values; it should be understood that a numerical including an associated range witha lower boundary of greater than zero must be a non-zero numerical, and the term “approximately” should be understood to include only non-zero values in such scenarios. As used herein, the term “subject” refers to a human or non-human animal, optionally a mammal including a human, non-primate such as cows, pigs, horses, goats, sheep, cats, dogs, avian species and rodents; and a non-human primate such as monkeys, chimpanzees, and apes; and a human, also denoted specifically as a “human subject.” The phrases “in some embodiments,” “according to some embodiments,” “in the embodiments shown,” “in other embodiments,” and the like generally mean the particular feature, structure, or characteristic following the phrase is included in at least one implementation. In addition, such phrases do not necessarily refer to the same embodiments or different embodiments. As used herein, the terms “comprises,” “comprising,” or any other variation thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion, such that a process, method, article, or apparatus that comprises a list of elements does not include only those elements but may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such process, method, article, or apparatus.Also, as used herein, the terms “coupled,” “coupling,” or any other variation thereof, areintended to cover a physical connection, an electrical connection, a magnetic connection, an optical connection, a communicative connection, a functional connection, a thermal connection, and / or any other connection. When language similar to “at least one of A, B, or C” or “at least one of A, B, and C” is used in the specification or claims, the phrase is intended to mean any of the following: (1) at least one of A; (2) at least one of B; (3) at least one of C; (4) at least one of A and at least one of B; (5) at least one of B and at least one of C; (6) at least one of A and at least one of C; or (7) at least one of A, at least one of B, and at least one of C. Referring in general to the following description and accompanying drawings, various embodiments of the present disclosure are illustrated to show its structure and method of operation. Common elements of the illustrated embodiments may be designated with similar reference numerals. Accordingly, the relevant descriptions of such features apply equally to the features and related components among all the drawings. For example, any suitable combination of the features, and variations of the same, described with components illustrated in Fig.1, can be employedwith the components of Fig. 2, and vice versa. This pattern of disclosure applies equally tofurther embodiments depicted in subsequent figures and described hereinafter. It should be understood that the figures presented are not meant to be illustrative of actual views of any particular portion of the actual structure or method but are merely idealized representations employed to more clearly and fully depict the present invention defined by the claims below. Disclosed herein are systems, apparatuses, and methods for mitigating aerosols during surgery. Various types of surgeries may produce aerosols that can hinder the surgeon or may be harmful to the patient, surgeon, or other medical staff. An example of an aerosol-producing surgery is adenotonsillectomy. The predominant tool used for this surgery, and similar surgeries, is electrocautery. Electrocautery’s high-temperature tissue ablation produces aerosols at significant levels throughout the procedure, which may not be adequately addressed by current mitigation methods and personal protective equipment. Furthermore, it has been shown that surgical aerosols have the potential to transmit viable SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses to operating room personnel during procedures. Conventional methods of aerosol mitigation during aerosol-generating procedures, oftentimes involving an otorhinolaryngology surgeon, relied on an external suction at the oral commissure, usually held by an assistant. With the additional concerns of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, an external smoke evacuator was mandated for use near the face to supplement the hand-held suction at the oral commissure. The rationale was that any aerosols that escaped the first suction would be captured by the smoke evacuator. These conventional methods can require additional personnel, large equipment, more expense, and provide inadequate aerosol mitigation. The proposed solution for this problem is an improved aerosol mitigation system. As shown in Fig.1A, an aerosol mitigation system in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention includes aerosol mitigation tool 102, which may be attached to, or integrated with, a modified tongue blade 10, a standard tongue blade, or any other intraoral device used during aerosol-generating procedures, such as adenotonsillectomy, to reduce the escape of surgically generated or other aerosols from the patient. The system may be employed in any intraoral surgery where a tongue blade or tongue depressor is used, including but not limited to tonsil surgery, cleft palate surgery, and supraglottic or glottic surgery. In various embodiments, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 may be affixed to or integrated with a device used to facilitate exposure for intraoral, pharyngeal, or laryngeal surgery, such as the tongue blade 10, tongue depressor, retractor, or laryngoscope. In some embodiments, as exemplified in Fig. 1B, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 is provided as a separate unit for attachment to such devices at the point of care using for example the clip mechanism 105. As such, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 can be detachably coupled to such devices, allowing for removal, replacement, or reuse. In some embodiments, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 or an attachment thereof is disposable,including when detachably coupled to a device used for exposure. The system may furtherinclude a light strip, which may be permanently or detachably coupled to either the aerosol mitigation system itself or to the associated intraoral device. In certain embodiments, a light strip that is detachably coupled to the aerosol mitigation system is also disposable. The aerosol mitigation tool 102 has an inlet structure 104 configured to create a vortex to collect aerosols and particulates more efficiently. The aerosol mitigation tool 102 may have a fluidic channel 106 that is coupled to the inlet structure 104. The aerosol mitigation tool 102 and the tongue blade 10 may form an aerosol mitigation system 100 capable of reducing the amount of particulates and aerosols that leave the patient during various surgeries. The tongue blade 10 may have a top surface 12 and a bottom surface 14. The aerosol mitigation tool 102 includes the inlet structure 104, an outlet 108, and a fluidic channel 106 extending therebetween. The aerosol mitigation tool 102 may exist as an attachment that is made and sold separately from the tongue blade 10. The aerosol mitigation attachment 102 may attach to a standard tongue blade 10 and / or a tongue depressor through various mechanisms such as a clamp, physical connection, an electrical connection, a magnetic connection, an optical connection, a communicative connection, a functional connection, or a thermal connection. The aerosol mitigation tool 102 may be a reusable attachment or device made of a material that can withstand autoclave sterilization. The aerosol mitigation attachment 102 may be removable and / or disposable to provide greater versatility with currently used surgical equipment and may be less expensive. As previously stated, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 includes an inlet structure 104, also described as an aerosol receiving portion. Moreover, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 may have more than one inlet structure 104 in any of its embodiments, whether disposable, not disposable, permanently attached, or removable. The inlet structure 104 may be removably coupled to the tongue blade 10 along with the fluidic channel 106, or it may be permanently coupled to the tongue blade 10 while the fluidic channel 106 is not. The inlet structure 104 may be cone-shaped to assist in aerosol and particulate collection, and may be designed to create a vortex that increases the amount of aerosols and particulates captured and prevented from being released from the patient. The shape and size of the inlet structure 104 are selected to achieve optimum aerosol and particulate capture without compromising the surgeon’s visualization of the operative field. In some embodiments, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 comprises more than one inlet structure 104 each with the same shape, or more than one inlet structure 104 each with the same shape and same diameter. In other embodiments, inlet structures 104 of different shapes and configurations may be used simultaneously on the aerosol mitigation tool 102. For example, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 may comprise a first inlet structure 104 having a first shape and a second inlet structure 104 having a second shape, wherein the first and second shapes are different, or a first inlet structure 104 having a first shape, a second inlet structure 104 having a second shape, and a third inlet structure 104 having a third shape wherein the first and second shapes are different and the first and third shapes are the same. In other embodiments, the aerosol mitigation tool 102 may comprise a first inlet structure 104 having a first shape and a first diameter, a second inlet structure 104 having a second shape and a second diameter wherein the first and second shapes are different and the first and second diameters are different, or a first inlet structure 104 having a first shape and a first diameter, a second inlet structure 104 having a second shape and a second diameter, and a third inlet structure 104 having a third shape and a third diameter wherein the first and second shapes are different and the first and third shapes are the same and the first and second diameters are different and the first and third diameters are the same. The shape and diameter of the aerosol mitigation tool 102 can be determined by a skilled artisan and may be altered to fit the needs of the particular surgery being performed. Initial work comparing the aerosol mitigation tool 102 to conventional mitigation methods like external oral commissure suction (the pre-pandemic standard) demonstrated the superiority of the aerosol mitigation tool 102 in capturing aerosols and particulates. With the aerosol mitigation tool 102, an average of 51.37 particles / cm³ were measured at the entrance of the oral cavity versus 2087 particles / cm³ with assisted suction. The inlet structure 104 may be placed in other locations besides on the top surface 12 of the tongue blade 10, such as on the bottom surface 14, sides, handle, or any other position on the tongue blade 10. The inlet structure 104 and / or aerosol mitigation tool 102 may be placed on other surgical equipment besides a tongue blade 10. The inlet structure 104 is designed tocollect aerosols in a more efficient manner than conventional methods and may prioritizeaerosol collection over fluid collection. The vortex inlet structure 104 creates a more powerful and compact method of evacuating aerosols from the patient during surgeries. The vortex may be created by the specific dimensions of the cone design of the inlet structure 104 or by specific internal structures such as curved pathways or vanes. The aerosol mitigation device 102 also includes a fluidic channel 106, also described as a tube 106. The fluidic channel 106 may be coupled to the inlet structure 104 in various ways, including but not limited to a clamp, physical connection, a magnetic connection, an optical connection, a communicative connection, a functional connection, or a thermal connection. The fluidic channel 106 and the inlet structure 104 are coupled so that aerosols and particulates collected by the inlet structure 104 flow through the fluidic channel 106. The fluidic channel 106 and the inlet structure 104 may be permanently coupled or removably coupled. The fluidic channel 106 may be removably coupled to the tongue blade 10 along with the inlet structure 104, or it may be permanently coupled to the tongue blade 10 while the inlet structure 104 is not. The fluidic channel 106 may accept and couple to various common types of medical hoses or other hoses, which may be connected to a vacuum system or suctioner. A suctioner is any device or machine that provides suction. The fluidic channel 106 may be removably ordetachably coupled to the medical hoses and / or other hoses, which may themselves beremovably coupled or detachably coupled to the suctioner. The connection from the inlet structure 104, to the fluidic channel 106, to a hose, and then to a suctioner creates a continuous passageway for aerosols and particulates to travel through after being evacuated from the patient. Experimentation of the embodiment in Fig.1: The present invention (also referred to as SmoVac) reduces operating room personnel exposure to aerosols and the potential for SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with these aerosols. Initial work comparing the present invention to the pre-pandemic standard demonstrated the present invention’s superiority in capturing aerosols. More specifically, the present invention measured an average of 51.37 particles / cm³ at the entrance of the oral cavity versus 2,087 particles / cm³ with traditional assisted suction. Statistical Methods: Individual simulations were summarized by median value across approximately 60 seconds of follow-up. Prior to medians being obtained, outliers were removed by defining and outlier as + / -1.5 [IQR] within each individual simulation. The average of the simulations median summarieswas then taken for all simulations done under each scenario and particle size. These are summarized with standard deviations in tables. The simulation summaries were then log- transformed due to skewed distribution prior to model fitting. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine the effect of mitigation procedure adjusting for particle size both formass concentration and particle counts. Multiple comparisons between the mitigationprocedures were conducted using the Tukey method. Results: Table 1: Replicate Average (sd) of 60 second individual median particle counts Simulation 0.5 micron 1 micron 2.5 micron 4 micron 10 micron Control (N = 4) 7680.26 9650.53 10089.79 10164.04 10177.45 (4422.73) (5966.5) (6420.32) (6484.99) (6496.34) SES (N = 8) 5.48 (1.39) 6.49 (1.64) 6.53 (1.65) 6.53 (1.65) 6.53 (1.65) SES Yaunker (N = 3) 3.32 (0.75) 3.93 (0.89) 3.94 (0.9) 3.94 (0.9) 3.94 (0.9) Smovac (N = 5) 2.93 (0.51) 3.46 (0.6) 3.48 (0.6) 3.48 (0.6) 3.48 (0.6) Simulation 0.5 micron 1 micron 2.5 micron 4 micron 10 micron Smovac Yaunker (N = 10) 2.7 (0.68) 3.19 (0.81) 3.21 (0.81) 3.21 (0.81) 3.21 (0.81) Suction Bovie (N = 5) 2.71 (0.52) 3.21 (0.62) 3.23 (0.62) 3.23 (0.62) 3.23 (0.62) Yaunker (N = 9) 3.17 (1.61) 3.75 (1.91) 3.77 (1.92) 3.77 (1.92) 3.77 (1.92) Table 2: Replicate Average of individual simulation medians Simulation 0.5 micron 1 micron 2.5 micron 4 micron 10 micron Control (N = 4) 7680.26 9650.53 10089.79 10164.04 10177.45 (4422.73) (5966.5) (6420.32) (6484.99) (6496.34) SES (N = 15) 21.44 (24.65) 25.36 (29.15) 25.48 (29.28) 25.49 (29.29) 25.49 (29.29) SES SBP (N = 7) 4.2 (0.69) 4.97 (0.82) 4.99 (0.82) 4.99 (0.82) 4.99 (0.82) SES Smovac (N = 10) 4.35 (0.55) 5.14 (0.66) 5.16 (0.66) 5.16 (0.66) 5.17 (0.66) SES Yankauer (N = 5) 3.63 (0.75) 4.3 (0.89) 4.32 (0.9) 4.32 (0.9) 4.32 (0.9) Smovac (N = 15) 3.71 (0.8) 4.39 (0.94) 4.41 (0.95) 4.41 (0.95) 4.41 (0.95) Smovac Yankauer (N = 10) 2.7 (0.68) 3.19 (0.81) 3.21 (0.81) 3.21 (0.81) 3.21 (0.81) Suction Bovie (N = 11) 3.5 (0.88) 4.15 (1.04) 4.16 (1.04) 4.16 (1.04) 4.17 (1.04) Yankauer (N = 9) 3.17 (1.61) 3.75 (1.91) 3.77 (1.92) 3.77 (1.92) 3.77 (1.92) Table 3: Replicate Average of individual simulation 75th percentiles (Q3) Simulation 0.5 micron 1 micron 2.5 micron 4 micron 10 micron Control (N = 4) 19115.93 25881.57 28007.9 28315.88 28369.54 (6683.43) (9546.65) (10625.94) (11043.2) (11060) SES (N = 15) 70.52 (83.88) 83.43 (99.22) 83.81 (99.67) 83.83 (99.69) 83.85 (99.71) SES SBP (N = 7) 4.54 (0.74) 5.36 (0.88) 5.39 (0.88) 5.39 (0.88) 5.39 (0.88) SES Smovac (N = 10) 4.8 (0.51) 5.68 (0.61) 5.7 (0.61) 5.7 (0.61) 5.7 (0.61) SES Yankauer (N = 5) 3.88 (0.83) 4.59 (0.98) 4.61 (0.99) 4.61 (0.99) 4.61 (0.99) Smovac (N = 15) 4.04 (0.86) 4.78 (1.02) 4.8 (1.02) 4.8 (1.02) 4.8 (1.02) Smovac Yankauer (N = 3.12 (0.66) 3.69 (0.78) 3.71 (0.78) 3.71 (0.78) 3.71 (0.78) 10) Suction Bovie (N = 11) 4.17 (1.13) 4.93 (1.33) 4.95 (1.34) 4.95 (1.34) 4.95 (1.34) Yankauer (N = 9) 4.58 (4.67) 5.42 (5.52) 5.44 (5.55) 5.44 (5.55) 5.45 (5.55) Fig.2 is a Boxplot of all simulation medians (3 lines show Q1, median, and Q3 respectively with a symbol for mean. Dots outside of lines (the range) are considered outliers. After adjusting for particle size, there was a significant association between particle count and mitigation strategy (ANCOVA p < 0.0001) therefore we performed pairwise comparisons between all strategies (table 2). All mitigation strategies had significantly lower particle counts compared to control (p < 0.0001). Based on figures 1-3 above, Smovac Yaunker was used as the primary reference comparison. Smovac Yaunker was significantly less likely to have increased particle counts compared to all mitigation strategies (p < 0.0001) except for Suction Bovie (p = 0.998). All other strategies were statistically significantly different (p < 0.0001) from one another but were not clinically better than Smovac Yaunker and were not summarized in detail. Figs.3A and 3B are Boxplots of all simulation medians of data in Figure 2 (3 lines show Q1, median, and Q3 respectively with a large dot for mean. Dots outside of lines (the range) are considered outliers. Table 4: Summary of Comparison of Odds of differences between Log Average Particle count of all replicates (of 60 second individual Median) ANCOVA adjusting for particle size. Values in ll and ul are the 95% confidence limits. Comparison Estimate* ll ul p_val Control - Smovac Yankauer 3068.3960 3002.3754 3135.8685 <0.0001 SES - Smovac Yankauer 2.0342 1.9905 2.0790 <0.0001 SES Yankauer - Smovac Yankauer 1.2296 1.2031 1.2566 <0.0001 Smovac - Smovac Yankauer 1.0841 1.0608 1.1079 <0.0001 Suction Bovie - Smovac Yankauer 1.0058 0.9841 1.0279 0.9983 Yaunker - Smovac Yankauer 1.1748 1.1495 1.2006 <0.0001 SES - Control 0.0007 0.0006 0.0007 <0.0001 SES Yankauer - Control 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 <0.0001 Smovac - Control 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 <0.0001 Suction Bovie - Control 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 <0.0001 Yaunker - Control 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 <0.0001 SES Yankauer - SES 0.6044 0.5914 0.6177 <0.0001 Smovac - SES 0.5329 0.5215 0.5446 <0.0001 Suction Bovie - SES 0.4944 0.4838 0.5053 <0.0001 Yaunker - SES 0.5775 0.5651 0.5902 <0.0001 Smovac - SES Yankauer 0.8817 0.8627 0.9011 <0.0001 Suction Bovie - SES Yankauer 0.8180 0.8004 0.8360 <0.0001 Yaunker - SES Yankauer 0.9554 0.9349 0.9764 0.0063 Suction Bovie - Smovac 0.9278 0.9078 0.9482 <0.0001 Yaunker - Smovac 1.0837 1.0603 1.1075 <0.0001 Yaunker - Suction Bovie 1.1680 1.1429 1.1937 <0.0001 *These are transformations of differences in log particle counts between simulations so the interpretation is a bit complicated and not very informative. If the value is <1 the first mitigation strategy is less likely to have a high particle count compared to the second mitigation strategy, if >1 the first is more likely to have a higher particle count. For example, SES is 2.0342 times more likely to have a higher particle count than Smovac Yaunker (95% CI: 1.9905, 2.079); SES Yaunker is 40% less likely (1-0.60) to have a high particle count compared to SES (95% CI: 37%-41%). Table 4b: Summary of Comparison of Log Median Values of All Replicates, With ANCOVAAdjusting for Particle SizeComparison Estimate Lower limit Upper limit P-value Control – SES* 596.12 404.42 878.69 <0.0001 Control - SES SBP* 1770.74 1149.4 2727.95 <0.0001 Control - SES Smovac* 1704.99 1133.89 2563.72 <0.0001 Control - SES Yankauer* 2063.24 1299.22 3276.57 <0.0001 Control - Smovac* 2028.8 1376.37 2990.49 <0.0001 Control - Smovac Yankauer* 2801.86 1863.36 4213.05 <0.0001 Control - Suction Bovie* 2165.34 1447.74 3238.61 <0.0001 Control - Yankauer* 2513.29 1660.75 3803.49 <0.0001 SES - SES SBP* 2.97 2.17 4.07 <0.0001 SES - SES Smovac* 2.86 2.16 3.79 <0.0001 SES - SES Yankauer* 3.46 2.42 4.94 <0.0001 SES - Smovac* 3.4 2.65 4.38 <0.0001 SES - Smovac Yankauer* 4.7 3.55 6.23 <0.0001 SES - Suction Bovie* 3.63 2.76 4.78 <0.0001 SES - Yankauer* 4.22 3.15 5.64 <0.0001 SES SBP - SES Smovac 0.96 0.69 1.35 1 SES SBP - SES Yankauer 1.17 0.78 1.74 0.97 SES SBP - Smovac 1.15 0.84 1.57 0.94 SES SBP - Smovac Yankauer* 1.58 1.13 2.22 0.008 SES SBP - Suction Bovie 1.22 0.88 1.71 0.64 SES SBP - Yankauer* 1.42 1 2.01 0.04 SES Smovac - SES Yankauer 1.21 0.83 1.77 0.84 SES Smovac - Smovac 1.19 0.9 1.58 0.64 SES Smovac - Smovac Yankauer* 1.64 1.21 2.24 <0.0001 SES Smovac - Suction Bovie 1.27 0.94 1.72 0.25 SES Smovac - Yankauer* 1.47 1.07 2.02 0.004 SES Yankauer - Smovac 0.98 0.69 1.4 1 SES Yankauer - Smovac Yankauer 1.36 0.93 1.98 0.2202 SES Yankauer - Suction Bovie 1.05 0.72 1.52 1 SES Yankauer - Yankauer 1.22 0.83 1.79 0.82 Smovac - Smovac Yankauer* 1.38 1.04 1.83 0.009 Smovac - Suction Bovie 1.07 0.81 1.4 0.998 Smovac - Yankauer 1.24 0.93 1.66 0.32 Smovac Yankauer - Suction Bovie 0.77 0.57 1.04 0.16 Smovac Yankauer - Yankauer 0.9 0.65 1.23 0.98 Comparison Estimate Lower limit Upper limit P-value Suction Bovie – Yankauer 1.16 0.85 1.58 0.87 Bold and / or *: statistically significant difference; ANCOVA estimate >1 means first strategy is less effective than second; estimate < 1 means first strategy is more effective than second; Suction Bovie: Medtronic Valleylab CVPLP2000, Covidien ForceTriad, Medtronic RapidVac SE3690, Medtronic Valleylab E3810. Referring now to Figs. 4-12, some embodiments of the aerosol mitigation tool, generally denoted by reference numeral 202, include a pair of spaced-apart arm members 210 and 212 defining a receiving region 214 dimensioned to receive and engage an anatomical feature such as the cheek, lip, or tongue, or to couple to a separate intraoral instrument such as a tongue blade 10, retractor, or mouth gag. In some embodiments, the arm members 210 and 212 terminate at free ends 210a, 212a thereby establishing an access opening 216. The access opening 216 dimensioned to accommodate an anatomical feature such as a cheek, lip, or tongue, or a portion of another intraoral device. The size of the access opening 216 may be selected to balance ease of insertion with secure retention, and may be adjusted based on patient anatomy, the target anatomical structure, or the geometry of the intraoral device to which the apparatus is coupled.In some examples, the access opening has a width of approximately 3 mm to approximately18 mm to accommodate variations in cheek thickness amongst patient types (i.e., newborn vs elevated BMI adult) and variation in cheek thickness along the depth of a particular mouth. In some embodiments, the access opening 216 is tapered, flared, or otherwise contoured to facilitate insertion of an anatomical feature or device portion into the receiving region 214. For example, the opposed surfaces of the first and second arm members 210 and 212 adjacent the access opening 216 may diverge away from their respective free ends so as to form a widened entry zone that guides the cheek, lip, tongue, or associated instrument into the receiving region 214 with reduced resistance. The free ends 210a, 212a may also be contoured in a symmetrical or asymmetrical manner, may include rounded or chamfered edges, and may be formed integrally with or added to the arm members 210 and 212. The receiving region 214 is defined as the space between the first arm member 210 and the second arm member 212. This receiving region 214 is dimensioned to accommodate an anatomical feature such as a cheek, lip, or tongue, or a portion of another intraoral device. In this manner, the receiving region 214 may be dimensioned to accommodate varying cheek thicknesses while minimizing patient discomfort. In some embodiments, the receiving region 214 corresponds approximately to an average cheek thickness (e.g., 6.2 mm). Some embodiments are configured to accommodate patients having larger or smaller cheek thicknesses. As such, the receiving region 214 may have a functional range of about 3 mm to about 40 mm. The size of the receiving region 214 may be fixed or adjustable, and may be selected to provide gentle but secure retention of the anatomical feature or device portion during use. The size of the receiving region 214 may also be variable along the longitudinal axis of the tool 202, i.e., the axis extending between the free ends of the arm members 210a and 212a and the connecting portion 218. In some embodiments, the receiving region 214 reduces in sizemoving from free ends of the arm members 210a and 212a towards the connecting portion 218.As a result, the receiving region 214 near the connecting portion 218 (i.e., the section that is closest to or in contact with the oral commissure) has a spacing that is smaller, thereby corresponding to the cheek location that is thinnest. The receiving region 214 then tapers out such that the end of the spacing between the free ends of the arm members 210a and 212a islarger to accommodate the increased cheek thickness that is typically present deeper into themouth. In some instances, the spacing of the receiving region 214 is approximately 3 mm proximate the connecting portion 218 and can increase to, e.g., approximately, 40 mm proximate the free ends of the arm members 210a and 212a. As previously explained, the first arm member 210 and the second arm member 212 include free ends 210a, 212a at one end of the tool 202. At the other end of the tool 202, a connecting portion 218 extends between and structurally couples the first arm member 210 and the second arm member 212. The connecting portion 218 may be curved, angled, straight, segmented, or formed in any geometry suitable to join the arm members in a spaced-apart relationship. In some embodiments, the connecting portion 218 is resilient. In addition, the first and second arm members 210 and 212 are biased toward one another to define a position of repose in which the receiving region 214 is less than an average cheek thickness. The resiliency and bias allow for insertion of a thicker object into the receiving space 214 while retaining the object therein. In some embodiments, the relative difference between the object thickness and the size of the receiving region 214 and the biasing force is established to facilitate gentle retention of a cheek positioned within the receiving region 214. In other embodiments, the same biasing feature can be used to retain other anatomical features, such as a lip or tongue, or to attach the apparatus to a tool or accessory positioned within or adjacent to the oral cavity. The resilient nature of connecting portion 218 may be achieved through its structural composition. For example, in some embodiments, the connecting portion may include a narrowed neck region, a hinge, a bellows, or an arcuate configuration. Other structural arrangements may likewise be used, and the present disclosure is not limited to the specific examples provided. In some embodiments, resiliency may instead or additionally be achieved through the material composition. Non-limiting examples include elastomers, spring metals, shape memory alloys, or polymer blends having inherent flexibility. Variations of these and other materials capable of providing resilient deflection are likewise contemplated. In further embodiments, the resilient and / or biasing function may be provided by mechanisms incorporated into or coupled with the connecting portion 218. Non-limiting examples include coil springs, leaf springs, torsion bars, elastomeric inserts, or magnetic biasing elements. Any equivalent mechanism capable of providing a resilient return force may be used. It should also be noted that the first and second arm members 210 and 212 may each have alength that is arcuate, straight, angled, segmented, or contoured in any manner suitable fortheir intended function. In some embodiments, the longitudinal profile of each arm member 210 and 212 is shaped to generally conform to anatomical structures, such as the interior surface of the cheek, lip, or tongue, to improve comfort and stability when positioned within the oral cavity. In other embodiments, the longitudinal profile is configured to engage or couple with aseparate intraoral device, such as a tongue blade, mouth gag, retractor, or other surgicalinstrument, and may be shaped to complement or interlock with the geometry of those devices. The cross-sectional profile of each arm 210 and 212 along its length may be uniform or vary to achieve desired mechanical or ergonomic characteristics, and the surfaces of the arms may be smooth, textured, cushioned, or otherwise treated to enhance retention or reduce patient discomfort. In addition, the spacing between the arm members 210 and 212 may be constant or vary along their length. The first and second arm members 210 and 212 may also be positioned in a generally parallel, converging, or diverging orientations relative to one another along at least a portion of their lengths. In some embodiments, the arm members 210 and 212 are shaped to provide a gradualor tapered entry into the receiving region, while in others the spacing changes abruptly at oneor more points to enhance retention of the anatomical feature or device portion once inserted. In some embodiments, the length of the arm members 210 and 212 is selected to position the inlet structure 204 at a desired location within the patient’s oral cavity, depending on whether the apparatus 202 is attached directly to an anatomical feature or to another intraoral device positioned at various locations. In some embodiments, the length of the first arm member 210 and / or the second arm member 212 is approximately 49 mm in one variation (Figs.8-11) and approximately 56 mm in another variation (Figs.4-7). The 49 mm version may vary between about 42 mm and about 56 mm, while the 56 mm version may vary between about 48 mm and about 64 mm. In addition, the overall length of the tool 202 may be between approximately 20 mm and 90 mm. These length variations allow the inlet structure 204 to be positioned optimally for different patient anatomies, surgical sites, and attachment configurations, while maintaining ergonomic access for the operator. It should also be noted that the lengths above may apply to one or both arm members such that the arm members may have the same length or different relative lengths. In some embodiments, the length of one or both of the arm members 210 and 212 is selected to positioned the inlet structure 204 roughly at a midpoint along the buccal mucosa extending from the oral commissure to the retromolar trigone. This midpoint can vary with patient age and size. For example, in a four-year-old child the distance may be approximately 25 mm, though in some cases it is as short as 20 mm. In teenagers, the distance may range from about 35 mm to 40 mm, while in larger patients, such as a 200-pound child, the distance may extend to approximately 45 mm. Based on these measurements, the length of the first arm member 210 may be approximately 35 mm or sufficiently sized to place the inlet structure 204 at a distance of approximately 35 mm from the oral commissure. In some embodiments, the length of the first arm member 210 may be between approximately 40 mm and 45 mm or the first arm member 210 is sufficiently sized to place the inlet structure 204 at a distance between approximately 40 mm and 45 mm from the oral commissure. In some embodiments, the length of the first arm member 210 may be between approximately 20 mm and 64 mm or the first arm member 210 is sufficiently sized to place the inlet structure 204 at a distance between approximately 20 mm and 64 mm from the oral commissure. The second arm member 212 may be the same length or have a larger length than the first arm member 210 to ensure sufficient contact along the cheek to maintain stability of the device during use. In some embodiments, the length of the second arm member 212 is approximately 50 mm, ensuring that when the clip is positioned on the exterior of the mouth in smaller patients, sufficient contact remains along the cheek to maintain stability of the device during use. In some embodiments, the second arm member 212 has a length of between approximately 20 mm and 64 mm. In some embodiments (Figs.4-7), the arm members 210 and 212 may have a relatively thinprofile to reduce the area occupied within the oral cavity, thereby improving visibility and / oraccess for the operator. In other embodiments (Figs.8-11), the arm members 210 and 212 may have a thicker profile to provide increased cross-sectional area for the fluidic channel 206 and to enhance stability by increasing the surface area in contact with the patient or an associated device. In certain examples, a thin-profile arm may have a width of approximately 14 mm, withacceptable variations ranging from about 8 mm to about 16 mm. A thick-profile arm may havea width of approximately 20 mm, with acceptable variations ranging from about 18 mm to about 30 mm. The choice between thin and thick profiles, as well as intermediate dimensions, may be based on procedural requirements, patient anatomy, desired fluid capacity, or other functional considerations. The aerosol mitigation tool 202 further includes an inlet structure 204 positioned proximate to the free end 210a of the first arm member 210. As such, the free end 210a of the first arm member 210 is intended for insertion into the oral cavity, such that the inlet structure 204 can draw in aerosol from within the oral cavity. In some embodiments, the inlet structure 204 includes a base portion 220 that has a bowl shape or conical shape defining a tapered interior surface configured to collect and direct aerosol, liquid, or gas toward a central region. The inlet structure 204 is designed to create a vortex flow to draw aerosol, liquid, or gas into the fluidic channel 206. Some embodiments include a central flow guide 222 disposed within the center of the base portion. The central flow guide is configured to further influence and direct fluid movement into the fluidic channel 206. The central flow guide 222 may take any form suitable for modifying, accelerating, or stabilizing the flow of fluid, including conical, frustoconical, pyramidal, domed, cylindrical, or other tapered or non-tapered geometries. In some embodiments, the central flow guide 222 is a biconical structure formed by two conical sections joined at their bases, with one cone projecting upward from the bowl 220 and the other projecting downward into the bowl 220. The biconical structure may be symmetrical or asymmetrical, pointed or truncated, and may include straight, curved, or faceted sidewalls. Some embodiments include a plurality of fins, vanes, flutes, blades, ribs, or other flow-directingelements 224 that extend between the inner surface of the bowl-shaped base 220 and the outersurface of the central flow guide 222. These flow-directing elements 224 serve both to secure the central flow guide 222 in position and to define flow channels that guide aerosol into the fluidic channel 206. The flow-directing elements 224 may be arranged radially, helically, tangentially, or in any combination thereof, and may be straight, curved, or angled along their length. In some embodiments, the flow-directing elements 224 have an airfoil-like profile with a camber to optimize fluid flow by reducing turbulence, increasing capture efficiency, or directing flow toward the inlet 204. In the currently depicted embodiment, six fins 224 are circumferentially arranged about the protrusion; however, the number of fins 224 may be greater or fewer depending on design considerations and / or flow characteristics.The flow-directing elements 224 may be spaced apart to define intervening flow channels, andmay vary in height, width, thickness, pitch, or cross-sectional contour. The leading and / or trailing edges of the flow-directing elements 224 may be straight, serrated, chamfered, or rounded to enhance fluid capture, reduce acoustic noise, or limit ingress of larger particulate matter. The height of the inlet structure 204 may be minimized to reduce visual obstructions for the operator during use. In addition, the height may vary by a reasonable amount to accommodate different operational requirements. For example, the height may be increased or decreased based on the age or size of the patient, the dimensions of the oral cavity, or the intended flow characteristics. In some embodiments, the height is between approximately 3 mm and 15 mm. In some embodiments, the height is adjustable, such as by interchangeable fin assemblies or telescoping components, to allow customization for specific procedures. The bowl-shaped base 220, conical protrusion 222, and flow-directing elements 224 may be integrally formed as a single piece or separately fabricated and coupled together by welding, adhesive bonding, mechanical fastening, or snap-fit engagement. The inlet structure 204 may be flexible, made from polymer, metal, composite, or any suitable material, and may include coatings or surface treatments, such as smooth finishes to reduce drag, textured finishes to enhance mixing, or antimicrobial coatings for clinical environments. In some embodiments, the bowl-shaped base 220 of the inlet structure 204 is positioned on an external surface of the first arm member 210 and oriented so that its opening faces toward the surgical site. This orientation facilitates direct capture of aerosolized material, fluid, or particulate matter generated during the procedure. However, the inlet structure 204 may be oriented in other directions, such as laterally, proximally, or distally, to address specific procedural requirements or to optimize fluid capture from a particular region of the oral cavity. In further embodiments, the inlet structure 204 may be mounted on a different surface of the first arm member 210, such as its upper surface, lower surface, or an angled face, connecting portion 218, or an auxiliary attachment. Multiple inlet structures 204 may also be provided, including a series of inlets distributed along one or more surfaces of the apparatus 202, to enhance aerosol collection efficiency and broaden the effective capture area. As best depicted in Figs.7 and 11, a fluidic channel 206 is in fluidic communication with the inlet structure 204 and an outlet 208. The outlet 208 is configured to fluidically communicate with a vacuum or ventilation system, thereby enabling the tool 202 to draw aerosol from within the oral cavity and safely deliver it to the external system. The fluidic channel 206 may extend at least partially through one or more of the arm members 210 and 212, along an exterior surface of the one or more of arm members 210 and 212, or in a separate conduit coupled to the arm members 210 and 212. The configuration facilitates stable positioning in a variety of procedural contexts while enabling efficient removal of aerosolized material to reduce airborne contamination and enhance procedural safety.In some embodiments, the fluidic channel 206 is dimensioned to provide sufficient cross-sectional area and flow capacity to capture and transport aerosolized material, fluid, and particulate matter from the inlet aperture 204 to the outlet 208 without significant loss in suction efficiency. For example, the inlet aperture 204 may have a diameter of approximately 6.871 mm resulting in an inlet area of approximately 37 mm2. In some embodiments, the inlet aperture204 may have a diameter between approximately 3 mm and 10 mm.In some embodiments, the inlet aperture 204 may have a cross-sectional area of approximately 7 mm2to 80 mm2. Likewise, the fluidic channel 206 may have a cross-sectional area of approximately 24 mm2in the thin-arm version or approximately 60 mm2in the thick-arm version. In some embodiments, the cross-sectional area of the fluidic channel 206 may be between approximately 14 mm2and 40 mm2. In some embodiments, the cross-sectional area of the fluidic channel 206 may be between approximately 50 mm2and 80 mm2. These configurations are selected to maintain a flow rate adequate for removal of aerosol under expected clinical suction pressures, while minimizing turbulence and resistance within the channel. The actual flow rate requirements may vary depending on procedural factors, suction source characteristics, and desired capture efficiency, and can be achieved by adjusting one or more of the channel dimensions, the internal surface finish, or the geometry of transitions between the inlet 204, channel 206, and outlet 208. In some embodiments, the cross-sectional area of the fluidic channel 206 may be varied along its length to optimize fluid acceleration, particulate transport, and noise reduction. In some embodiments, the outlet 208 is positioned on an external surface of the second arm member 212 (Figs.4-7) or at the free end 212a of the second arm member 212 (Figs.8-11). Positioning the outlet 208 in this manner can facilitate routing of tubing or hoses toward adesired location outside the patient’s oral cavity, thereby reducing interference with the surgicalfield and improving operator ergonomics. In other embodiments, the outlet 208 may be located on other portions of the tool 202, such as along the connecting portion 218 between the arm members 210 and 212 or at a position intermediate the free end 212a and the connecting portion 218. The outlet 208 may also be angled or oriented in a selected direction to aid in hosemanagement, minimize kinking, or accommodate different patient positions. In someembodiments, the outlet 208 is oriented in a generally perpendicular orientation relative to the second arm member 212, while in other embodiments, the outlet 208 is oriented at an angle relative to the second arm member 212 that is between approximately 30 and 60 degrees. In some embodiments, the angle is between approximately 15 and 90 degrees. Multiple outlets may be provided, including outlets on different surfaces or at different locations, to allow variable connection points for hoses and to improve flexibility in positioning the aerosol mitigation system for various procedures. In some embodiments, the outlet 208 is or includes a hose adapter configured to receive and retain a vacuum hose or an intermediate coupling adapter. The hose adapter may be integralwith the outlet 208 or may be a separate component attached by press-fit engagement,threaded connection, bayonet lock, clamp, or other suitable fastening mechanism. The hose adapter may have a cylindrical, tapered, barbed, or quick-connect geometry sized to correspond to standard or custom vacuum hose dimensions used in clinical settings. For example, the outlet 208 or the hose adapter can have a length between approximately 10 mmand 20 mm, and in some cases the outlet 208 or the hose adapter has an adjustable length. Insome embodiments, the hose adapter includes surface texturing, ridges, or locking features to improve retention of the connected hose during use, while permitting rapid connection and disconnection for cleaning, sterilization, or replacement. The geometry and orientation of the hose adapter may be selected to reduce kinking of the hose, improve operator ergonomics,and optimize routing away from the surgical field.Also disclosed is a method of making an aerosol mitigation system. The method includes manufacturing at least one inlet structure 104, the inlet structure 104 having an opening configured to receive aerosols; manufacturing a fluidic channel 106; coupling the inlet structure 104 to the fluidic channel 106 to create an aerosol mitigation tool, wherein aerosols received by the opening pass through the fluidic channel 106; and coupling the aerosol mitigation tool 102 to a tongue depressor 10, a patient’s anatomy, or another surgical aid / instrument. The inlet structure 104 and fluidic channel 106 may be manufactured separately or they may be manufactured as a single unit such as by molding, machining from a solid block, additive manufacturing / 3D printing, or other methods. Also disclosed is a method of aerosol mitigation during surgery. In some embodiments, the method includes placing a tongue blade 10 into the patient’s mouth, the tongue blade 10 having an aerosol mitigation tool 102 with an inlet structure 104 coupled to the tongue blade 10, theinlet structure 104 being coupled to a hose adapter, and the hose adapter being coupled to ahose. The hose is connected to a vacuum system (i.e., any machine that provides suction), and the vacuum system is turned on to vacate aerosols from the patient. The method of mitigation vacates enough viral material from the air so that an external extractor is not needed to keep the operating personnel safe. In some embodiments, the method of using the aerosol mitigation tool 202 includes the step of positioning the first arm member 210 and the second arm member 212 such that the access opening 216 is aligned with a target anatomical feature, such as a patient’s cheek, lip, or tongue, or with a portion of an intraoral device, such as a tongue blade 10, mouth gag, or retractor. The tool 202 is then advanced so that the target anatomical feature or device portion passes through the access opening 216 and into the receiving region 214. The tapered or flared configuration of the access opening 216 and the biasing of the arm members 210 and 212 toward one another facilitate guided insertion and gentle retention of the anatomical feature or device portion within the receiving region 214. Once in position, the inlet structure 204, located proximate the free end 210a of the first arm member 210, is thereby placed within or adjacent to the patient’s oral cavity and oriented toward the surgical site. The orientation of the inlet structure 204 may be selected to optimize capture of aerosolized material, fluid, or particulate matter generated during the procedure. The tool 202 is then coupled via the outlet 208 to an external vacuum or ventilation system, establishing fluidic communication through the fluidic channel 206. During use, the vacuum system is activated to draw aerosol, fluid, and particulate matter through the inlet structure 204, past the central flow guide 222 and flow-directing elements 224, and through the fluidic channel 206 to the outlet 208, where it is conveyed to the external collection or filtration system. The positioning of the inlet structure 204 relative to the surgical site and the geometry of the flow-directing elements 224 function together to stabilize flow, increase capture efficiency, and minimize turbulence. The method may further include adjusting the length, profile, or thickness of the arm members 210 and 212, or selecting between thin- and thick-profile embodiments, to accommodate patient anatomy, procedural requirements, and desired fluidic channel capacity. The receiving region 214 width and access opening 216 size may also be selected or adjusted to achieve a balance between secure retention and patient comfort. In some embodiments, the tool 202 is detached and repositioned during the procedure to accommodate changes in surgical access, patient positioning, or the location of aerosol generation. Upon completion of the procedure, suction is discontinued, the tool 202 is withdrawn from the oral cavity or intraoral device, and the apparatus is cleaned, sterilized, or disposed of according to the material composition and procedural requirements. Experimentation of the embodiments in Figs.4-12: Testing was conducted to compare the thick and thin embodiments of the present invention exemplified in Figs. 4-12 (the SmoVac system) with existing smoke mitigation modalities including no suction, a suction tongue blade, and a suction-enabled electrosurgical pencil (Bovie). Performance was evaluated using both particle count data and audio output levels.Statistical Methods:Particle counts were recorded on a per-second basis across replicate trials for each smoke evacuation modality. For each replicate, total particle counts were summed and analyzed using regression techniques. Because the raw particle count distributions exhibited skewness and did not follow a normal distribution, the data were log-transformed prior to analysis. Comparisons were performed using linear or generalized linear regression models depending on normality assumptions. Pairwise contrasts were generated between the SmoVac system and other evacuation modalities. Statistical superiority was defined by a p-value less than 0.05. Equivalence testing was performed using two-sided 95% confidence intervals with equivalence margins of ±100 particles for aerosols less than 5 microns and ±500 particles for largeraerosols.Acoustic performance was assessed by continuous monitoring of average and peak decibel levels during use of each modality. Means or medians were calculated depending on normality. Pairwise comparisons were performed using linear regression, adjusting for monitoring duration. Superiority was determined by contrasts with p-values less than 0.05. Equivalence was assessed using two-sided 95% confidence intervals with a margin of ±5 decibels. Subjective assessments were collected using a ten-point Likert scale across replicate trials. Likert data were analyzed using linear regression, with generalized models considered where normality assumptions were not satisfied. Equivalence bounds of ±1 point were applied, with superiority determined by p-values less than 0.05.Particle Capture Results:The SmoVac device demonstrated statistically significant reductions in particle counts relative to modalities lacking active suction. At the 0.5 micron size, conditions without suction produced approximately 2100 times more particles than those captured with the thick SmoVac device. Relative to a suction tongue blade, the thick SmoVac reduced particle escape by approximately 18%, while the thin SmoVac reduced particle escape by 4%. Comparisons between thick and thin SmoVac variants revealed that the thick configuration achieved 14% greater reduction in particle counts. Across all particle sizes, both thick and thin SmoVac systems were superior to no suction, the suction tongue blade, and the electrosurgical Bovie pencil. Tables 5-9 below provide pairwise contrasts for the number of particles of a particular size (0.5, 1, 2.5, 4, and ≥10 microns) by smoke evacuation system and Figs.13-16 provide heatmaps ofpairwise contrasts for the ratio difference in total particle count for particles for the respectiveparticle sizes (95% CI). For superiority, values > 1 indicate that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Table 5: Pairwise contrasts for number of particles of size 0.5 micron by smoke evacuation system Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? External / Bovie 105.18 (21.58, <0.001 Bovie (0.9976, 512.57) 1.0024) No suction / Bovie 143.77 (29.45, <0.001 Bovie 701.91) Yankaur / Bovie 26.71 (5.48, <0.001 Bovie 130.15) No suction / 1.37 (0.28, 6.65) 0.996 (0.9999, Inconclusive External 1.0001) No suction / Thick 2137.21 (428.41, <0.001 Thick (0.9317, Smovac 10661.97) Smovac 1.0683) External / Thick 1563.52 (311.46, <0.001 Thick Smovac 7848.89) Smovac Bovie / Thick 14.87 (2.92, <0.001 Thick Smovac 75.72) Smovac Yankaur / Thick 397.01 (79.09, <0.001 Thick Smovac 1993) Smovac Tongue / Thick 1.18 (0.22, 6.48) 1 Inconclusive Smovac Thin Smovac / 1.14 (0.22, 5.81) 1 Inconclusive Thick Smovac External / Thin 1368.14 (280.85, <0.001 Thin (0.9336, Smovac 6664.73) Smovac 1.0664) Yankaur / Thin 347.4 (71.31, <0.001 Thin Smovac 1692.32) Smovac Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? Tongue / Thin 1.04 (0.21, 5.14) 1 Inconclusive Smovac No suction / Thin 1870.14 (383.31, <0.001 Thin Smovac 9124.36) Smovac Bovie / Thin 13.01 (2.67, <0.001 Thin Smovac 63.31) Smovac External / Tongue 1319.63 (263.44, <0.001 Tongue (0.9431, 6610.26) 1.0569) Yankaur / Tongue 335.08 (66.89, <0.001 Tongue 1678.49) No suction / 1803.83 (357.7, <0.001 Tongue Tongue 9096.47) Bovie / Tongue 12.55 (2.53, <0.001 Tongue 62.14) No suction / 5.38 (1.11, 0.031 Yankaur (0.9998, Yankaur 26.21) 1.0002) External / Yankaur 3.94 (0.81, 0.128 Inconclusive 19.17) Table 6: Pairwise contrasts for number of particles of size 1 micron by smoke evacuation system Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? External / Bovie 171.48 <0.001 Bovie (0.998, 1.002) (33.89, 867.71) No suction / 295.38 <0.001 Bovie Bovie (58.27, 1497.45) Yankaur / Bovie 28.37 (5.61, <0.001 Bovie 143.54) No suction / 1.72 (0.34, 0.941 (1, 1) Inconclusive External 8.71) Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? No suction / 4455.73 <0.001 Thick (0.9422, Thick Smovac (859.72, Smovac 1.0578) 23092.95) External / Thick 2586.68 <0.001 Thick Smovac (495.91, Smovac 13492.17) Bovie / Thick 15.08 (2.85, <0.001 Thick Smovac 79.86) Smovac Yankaur / Thick 427.9 (82.04, <0.001 Thick Smovac 2231.93) Smovac Tongue / Thick 1.19 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 6.79) Thin Smovac / 1.15 (0.22, 1 Inconclusive Thick Smovac 6.06) External / Thin 2255.02 <0.001 Thin (0.9439, Smovac (445.83, Smovac 1.0561) 11405.85) Yankaur / Thin 373.03 <0.001 Thin Smovac (73.75, Smovac 1886.8) Tongue / Thin 1.04 (0.2, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 5.36) No suction / 3884.43 <0.001 Thin Thin Smovac (766.76, Smovac 19678.71) Bovie / Thin 13.15 (2.6, <0.001 Thin Smovac 66.45) Smovac External / 2169.67 <0.001 Tongue (0.9519, Tongue (416.88, 1.0481) 11292.05) Yankaur / 358.91 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (68.96, 1867.97) No suction / 3737.4 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (713.2, 19585.26) Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? Bovie / Tongue 12.65 (2.46, <0.001 Tongue 65.09) No suction / 10.41 (2.06, 0.001 Yankaur (0.9999, Yankaur 52.63) 1.0001) External / 6.05 (1.2, 0.021 Yankaur Yankaur 30.54) Table 7: Pairwise contrasts for number of particles of size 2.5 micron by smoke evacuation system Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? External / Bovie 207.85 <0.001 Bovie (0.9981, (40.32, 1.0019) 1071.39) No suction / 381.29 <0.001 Bovie Bovie (73.83, 1969.08) Yankaur / 29.29 (5.68, <0.001 Bovie Bovie 151) No suction / 1.83 (0.36, 0.909 (1, 1) Inconclusive External 9.45) No suction / 5794.36 <0.001 Thick (0.9425, Thick Smovac (1097.24, Smovac 1.0575) 30599.11) External / Thick 3158.64 <0.001 Thick Smovac (594.27, Smovac 16788.55) Bovie / Thick 15.2 (2.82, <0.001 Thick Smovac 82) Smovac Yankaur / Thick 445.17 <0.001 Thick Smovac (83.75, Smovac 2366.11) Tongue / Thick 1.19 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 6.94) Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? Thin Smovac / 1.15 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Thick Smovac 6.18) External / Thin 2750.41 <0.001 Thin (0.9441, Smovac (533.83, Smovac 1.0559) 14170.85) Yankaur / Thin 387.63 <0.001 Thin Smovac (75.24, Smovac 1997.18) Tongue / Thin 1.04 (0.2, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 5.46) No suction / 5045.49 <0.001 Thin Thin Smovac (977.7, Smovac 26037.7) Bovie / Thin 13.23 (2.57, <0.001 Thin Smovac 68.11) Smovac External / 2644.23 <0.001 Tongue (0.9521, Tongue (498.61, 1.0479) 14023.03) Yankaur / 372.67 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (70.27, 1976.35) No suction / 4850.71 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (908.34, 25903.71) Bovie / Tongue 12.72 (2.43, <0.001 Tongue 66.68) No suction / 13.02 (2.53, <0.001 Yankaur (0.9999, Yankaur 67.02) 1.0001) External / 7.1 (1.38, 0.01 Yankaur Yankaur 36.52) Table 8: Pairwise contrasts for number of particles of size 4 micron by smoke evacuation system Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? External / Bovie 213.57 <0.001 Bovie (0.9981, (41.32, 1.0019) 1103.86) No suction / 394.93 <0.001 Bovie Bovie (76.27, 2045.05) Yankaur / 29.44 (5.7, <0.001 Bovie Bovie 152.16) No suction / 1.85 (0.36, 0.905 (1, 1) Inconclusive External 9.55) No suction / 6008.53 <0.001 Thick (0.9425, Thick Smovac (1134.68, Smovac 1.0575) 31817.39) External / Thick 3249.29 <0.001 Thick Smovac (609.64, Smovac 17318.06) Bovie / Thick 15.21 (2.81, <0.001 Thick Smovac 82.32) Smovac Yankaur / Thick 447.9 (84.04, <0.001 Thick Smovac 2387.21) Smovac Tongue / Thick 1.19 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 6.96) Thin Smovac / 1.15 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Thick Smovac 6.2) External / Thin 2828.88 <0.001 Thin (0.9441, Smovac (547.57, Smovac 1.0559) 14614.65) Yankaur / Thin 389.95 <0.001 Thin Smovac (75.48, Smovac 2014.55) Tongue / Thin 1.04 (0.2, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 5.48) No suction / 5231.12 <0.001 Thin Thin Smovac (1010.92, Smovac 27068.89) Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? Bovie / Thin 13.25 (2.57, <0.001 Thin Smovac 68.36) Smovac External / 2719.37 <0.001 Tongue (0.9521, Tongue (511.36, 1.0479) 14461.3) Yankaur / 374.85 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (70.49, 1993.42) No suction / 5028.62 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (939.05, 26928.16) Bovie / Tongue 12.73 (2.42, <0.001 Tongue 66.92) No suction / 13.41 (2.6, <0.001 Yankaur (0.9999, Yankaur 69.26) 1.0001) External / 7.25 (1.41, 0.009 Yankaur Yankaur 37.44) Table 9: Pairwise contrasts for number of particles of size ≥ 10 micron by smoke evacuation system Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? External / Bovie 214.49 <0.001 Bovie (0.9903, (41.48, 1.0097) 1109.09) No suction / 397.13 <0.001 Bovie Bovie (76.66, 2057.31) Yankaur / 29.46 (5.7, <0.001 Bovie Bovie 152.35) No suction / 1.85 (0.36, 0.904 (0.9999, Inconclusive External 9.56) 1.0001) No suction / 6043.08 <0.001 Thick (0.7125, Thick Smovac (1140.7, Smovac 1.2875) 32014.35) Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? External / Thick 3263.89 <0.001 Thick Smovac (612.12, Smovac 17403.54) Bovie / Thick 15.22 (2.81, <0.001 Thick Smovac 82.37) Smovac Yankaur / Thick 448.34 <0.001 Thick Smovac (84.08, Smovac 2390.6) Tongue / Thick 1.19 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 6.96) Thin Smovac / 1.15 (0.21, 1 Inconclusive Thick Smovac 6.2) External / Thin 2841.52 <0.001 Thin (0.7206, Smovac (549.78, Smovac 1.2794) 14686.28) Yankaur / Thin 390.32 <0.001 Thin Smovac (75.52, Smovac 2017.35) Tongue / Thin 1.04 (0.2, 1 Inconclusive Smovac 5.48) No suction / 5261.06 <0.001 Thin Thin Smovac (1016.27, Smovac 27235.57) Bovie / Thin 13.25 (2.57, <0.001 Thin Smovac 68.4) Smovac External / 2731.47 <0.001 Tongue (0.7608, Tongue (513.41, 1.2392) 14532.04) Yankaur / 375.2 (70.52, <0.001 Tongue Tongue 1996.16) No suction / 5057.31 <0.001 Tongue Tongue (944, 27093.76) Bovie / Tongue 12.73 (2.42, <0.001 Tongue 66.96) Ratio difference p- Superior Equivalence Comparison (95% CI) value system? bounds Equivalence? No suction / 13.48 (2.61, <0.001 Yankaur (0.9993, Yankaur 69.62) 1.0007) External / 7.28 (1.41, 0.009 Yankaur Yankaur 37.59) Finally, Table 10 below provides the descriptive statistics of total particle counts by smoke evacuation system.

[0002] Table 10: Descriptive statistics of total particle counts by smoke evacuation system Thick Thin Tongue Bovie External No suction Yankaur Smovac Smovac Blade (N= 7) (N= 7) (N= 7) (N= 7) (N= 7) (N= 7) (N= 7) Total particles of 41841.568 1780465.6 2314926.3 1463.2425 1505.9394 1758.6503 537239.26 size 0.5 micron (54303.562) (543695.86) (220457.84) (1059.0763) (969.67469) (1492.1679) (362339.46) Mean (SD) Total particles of 50693.643 3681432.1 5719107.4 1730.6954 1781.1963 2080.0978 704314.95 size 1 micron (66805.719) (1508387.8) (814636.93) (1252.6552) (1146.9126) (1764.9074) (511416.83) Mean (SD) Total particles of 51624.211 4622167.8 7493562.6 1738.3415 1789.0655 2089.2875 747842.34 size 2.5 microns (68617.782) (2040841.4) (1291144.2) (1258.1894) (1151.9796) (1772.7045) (562888.66) Mean (SD) Total particles of 51750.002 4771458.7 7775731.2 1738.7638 1789.5001 2089.7950 754501.58 size 4 microns (68877.901) (2125974.4) (1368256.0) (1258.4951) (1152.2594) (1773.1351) (570943.80) Mean (SD) Total particles of 51777.530 4796223.4 7822364.5 1739.0746 1789.8200 2090.1686 755681.83 size 10 microns (68929.511) (2140020.1) (1380909.8) (1258.7200) (1152.4654) (1773.4521) (572324.49) Mean (SD)

[0003] Acoustic Performance Results: Average noise levels for the thick SmoVac were approximately 75 dB for the thick SmoVac and approximately 67 for the think SmoVac. These levels are within occupational safety standards and not considered hazardous at typical exposure durations. Subjective Assessment: Likert scale ratings indicated that the SmoVac systems performed at least as well as conventional modalities. Both thick and thin SmoVac devices received favorable assessments comparable to or better than the Bovie pencil. Importantly, unlike the suction Bovie pencil, the SmoVac did not obstruct the surgical field, preserving visibility and usability during procedures. Table 11 below provides pairwise contrasts for Likert scale ratings of smoke evacuation systems and Figs.18-19 respectively provide the model-estimated mean Likert rating, with 95% CI bands, by smokeevacuation system and a heatmap of pairwise contrasts for the average difference in Likert ratings (95% CI) with negative values indicating that the smoke evacuation system on the y-axis is superior. Table 11: Pairwise contrasts for Likert scale ratings of smoke evacuation systems Average difference p- Superior Comparison (95% CI) value system? Equivalence? No suction - External -1.43 (-2.87, 0.02) 0.054 Inconclusive No suction - Yankaur -4 (-5.44, -2.56) <0.001 Yankaur No suction - Tongue -3.86 (-5.3, -2.41) <0.001 Tongue No suction - Bovie -5.86 (-7.3, -4.41) <0.001 Bovie No suction - Thin Smovac -5.57 (-7.02, -4.13) <0.001 Thin Smovac No suction - Thick -5.86 (-7.3, -4.41) <0.001 Thick Smovac Smovac External - Yankaur -2.57 (-4.02, -1.13) <0.001 Yankaur External - Tongue -2.43 (-3.87, -0.98) <0.001 Tongue External - Bovie -4.43 (-5.87, -2.98) <0.001 Bovie External - Thin Smovac -4.14 (-5.59, -2.7) <0.001 Thin Smovac External - Thick Smovac -4.43 (-5.87, -2.98) <0.001 Thick Smovac Average difference p- Superior Comparison (95% CI) value system? Equivalence? Yankaur - Tongue 0.14 (-1.3, 1.59) 1 Inconclusive Yankaur - Bovie -1.86 (-3.3, -0.41) 0.005 Bovie Yankaur - Thin Smovac -1.57 (-3.02, -0.13) 0.025 Thin Smovac Yankaur - Thick Smovac -1.86 (-3.3, -0.41) 0.005 Thick Smovac Tongue - Bovie -2 (-3.44, -0.56) 0.002 Bovie Tongue - Thin Smovac -1.71 (-3.16, -0.27) 0.011 Thin Smovac Tongue - Thick Smovac -2 (-3.44, -0.56) 0.002 Thick Smovac Bovie - Thin Smovac 0.29 (-1.16, 1.73) 0.996 Inconclusive Bovie - Thick Smovac 0 (-1.44, 1.44) 1 Inconclusive Thin Smovac - Thick -0.29 (-1.73, 1.16) 0.996 Inconclusive Smovac Finally, Table 12 below provides the descriptive statistics of Likert rating by smoke evacuation system.

[0004] Table 12: Descriptive statistics of Likert rating by smoke evacuation system Thick Thin Tongue BovieExternal No Suction Yankaur SmoVac SmoVac Blade (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) (N=7) Likert ratingMean (SD) 6.86 (1.07) 2.43 (0.535) 1.00 (0) 6.86 (1.07) 6.57 (0.976) 4.86 (1.35) 5.00 (0) Median (Q1, 7.00 (6.50, 2.00 (2.00, 1.00 (1.00, 7.00 (6.50, 7.00 (6.00, 5.00 (4.00, 5.00 (5.00, Q3) 7.50) 3.00) 1.00) 7.50) 7.00) 5.50) 5.00)

[0005] Overall Performance: Taken together, the results confirm that the SmoVac device, representing the present invention, achieves improved smoke evacuation performance compared to conventional systems. The SmoVac provides superior particle capture, maintains acceptable noise levels, and avoids ergonomic drawbacks present in other devices. It should be noted that the method may be used in various oral surgeries. For example, the disclosed aerosol mitigation system can be used with other devices such as laryngoscopes inserted into the mouth to facilitate intraoral surgery. It can also be used with other devices such as intraoral devices, pharyngeal devices, mouth gags, or retractors inserted into the mouth that may be used to facilitate intraoral surgery. Exemplary embodiments of the methods and systems have been disclosed in an illustrative style.Accordingly, the terminology employed throughout should be read in a non-limiting manner. Althoughminor modifications to the teachings herein will occur to those well versed in the art, it shall be understood that what is intended to be circumscribed within the scope of the patent warranted hereon are all such embodiments that reasonably fall within the scope of the advancement to the art hereby contributed, and that that scope shall not be restricted, except in light of the appended claims and their equivalents. While the principles of this disclosure have been shown in various embodiments, many modifications of structure, arrangements, proportions, elements, materials, and components used in practice, which may be particularly adapted for a specific environment and operating requirements, may be used without departing from the principles and scope of this disclosure. These and other changes or modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure and may be expressed in the following claims. The present disclosure has been described with reference to various embodiments. However, one of ordinary skill in the art appreciates that various modifications and changes can be made without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. Accordingly, the specification is to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense, and all such modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure. Likewise, benefits, other advantages, and solutions to problems have been described above with regard to various embodiments. However, benefits, advantages, solutions to problems, and any element or elements that may cause any benefit, advantage, or solution to occur or become more pronounced are not to be construed as a critical, required, or essential feature or element of any or all the claims.The advantages set forth above, and those made apparent from the foregoing description, are efficientlyattained. Since certain changes may be made in the above construction without departing from the scope of the invention, it is intended that all matters contained in the foregoing description or shown in the accompanying drawings shall be interpreted as illustrative and not in a limiting sense. It is also to be understood that the following claims are intended to cover all of the generic and specific features of the invention herein described, and all statements of the scope of the invention that, as a matter of language, might be said to fall therebetween.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. An aerosol mitigation apparatus, comprising: a body configured for attachment to a tongue blade; an inlet structure positioned at a distal end of the body; a fluidic channel extending from the inlet structure to an outlet configured for connection to a vacuum source; wherein the inlet structure has a base portion with a conical interior surface that tapers inwardly towards the fluidic channel and is configured to capture aerosol from a surgical site and convey the aerosol through the fluidic channel to the outlet.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inlet structure further comprises a central flow guide disposed within the base portion.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the central flow guide is a biconical structure comprising two conical sections joined at their bases, with one cone projecting upward from the base portion and the other cone projecting downward into the base portion.

4. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of flow-directing elements disposed at least partially within the inlet structure or adjacent to the inlet structure.

5. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of vanes extending between the interior surface of the base portion and the central flow guide, the vanes defining flow channels for directing aerosol into the fluidic channel.

6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the outlet comprises a hose adapter configured to receive and retain a vacuum hose.

7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inlet structure is oriented to face toward the surgical site when the apparatus is attached to the tongue blade.

8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the inlet structure has a height that is less than or equal to 15 mm.

9. An aerosol mitigation apparatus comprising: a first arm member and a second arm member spaced apart to define a receiving region dimensioned to receive and engage an anatomical feature or a portion of an intraoral device; a connecting portion coupling the first and second arm members; an inlet structure positioned at a distal end of the first arm member;a fluidic channel extending from the inlet structure to an outlet configured for connection to a vacuum source; wherein the inlet structure has a base portion with a conical interior surface that tapers inwardly towards the fluidic channel and is configured to capture aerosol from a surgical site and convey the aerosol through the fluidic channel to the outlet.

10. The apparatus of claim 9, further comprising a plurality of flow-directing elements disposed at least partially within the base portion of the inlet structure or adjacent to the base portion of the inlet structure.

11. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the inlet structure further comprises a central flow guide disposed within the base portion.

12. The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the central flow guide is a biconical structure comprising twoconical sections joined at their bases, with one cone projecting upward from the base portion and the other cone projecting downward into the base portion.

13. The apparatus of claim 11, further comprising a plurality of vanes extending between the base portion and the central flow guide, the vanes defining flow channels for directing aerosol into the fluidic channel.

14. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first arm member and the second arm member are biased toward one another to gently retain the anatomical feature or device portion in the receiving region.

15. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the receiving region is dimensioned to have a position of repose that is less than a thickness of a patient cheek.

16. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the receiving region is dimensioned to have a position of repose that is between approximately 3 mm and 40 mm.

17. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the fluidic channel extends through the first arm member and the second arm member.

18. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the outlet is configured for connection to a vacuum hose.

19. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the inlet structure is oriented to face toward the surgical site when the apparatus is positioned with the receiving region engaging the anatomical feature or device portion.

20. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first arm member is concave such that an inner surface of the first arm member curves inward toward the receiving region.

21. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the inlet structure has a height that is less than or equal to 15 mm.

22. A method of mitigating aerosol during an intraoral procedure, the method comprising: acquiring an aerosol mitigation apparatus having a first arm member and a second arm member spaced apart to define a receiving region; inserting an anatomical feature of a patient or a portion of an intraoral device into the receiving region such that the first and second arm members engage and retain the anatomical feature or device portion; orienting an inlet structure of the apparatus toward a surgical site within an oral cavity of the patient, wherein the inlet structure has a base portion with a conical interior surface that tapers inwardly towards a fluidic channel;coupling an outlet of the apparatus to a vacuum source; and operating the vacuum source to draw aerosol through the inlet structure and the fluidic channel of the apparatus to the outlet.

23. The method of claim 22, wherein the first and second arm members are biased toward one another to gently retain the anatomical feature or portion of the intraoral device in the receiving region.

24. The method of claim 22, wherein the inlet structure includes a central flow guide disposed within the base portion.

25. The method of claim 24, wherein the central flow guide is a biconical structure comprising two conical sections joined at their bases.

26. The method of claim 24, further comprising directing aerosol into the fluidic channel through a plurality of vanes in the inlet structure.

27. The method of claim 22, wherein the receiving region is dimensioned to have a position of repose that is less than a thickness of a patient cheek.

28. The method of claim 22, wherein the receiving region is dimensioned to have a position of repose that is between approximately 3 mm and 40 mm.

29. The method of claim 22, wherein the fluidic channel extends through the first arm member and the second arm member.

30. The method of claim 22, wherein the first arm member is concave such that an inner surface of the first arm member curves inward toward the receiving region.

31. The method of claim 22, wherein the inlet structure has a height that is less than or equal to 15 mm.

Images