The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of five commercially available disinfectants- Povidine-Iodine, Sodium Hypochlorite, Glutaraldehyde, Peracetic Acid and Isopropyl Alcohol on two commonly used impression materials namely zinc oxide Eugenol and irreversible hydrocolloid in preventing transmission of infections. Various methods have been reported in literature for the purpose of disinfection and sterilization of impressions including the use of disinfectant sprays, solutions and ethylene oxide gas sterilization. The Federation Dentaire Internationale stated that all patients’ prosthesis should be cleaned and disinfected before delivery to the laboratory. Recovery of microorganisms from stone casts prompted dentists to employ effective disinfection programmes for dental impressions to prevent such cross - contamination. (4) Impressions laden with microorganisms have shown microorganisms surviving up to 5 hours on an impression. Leung and Schonfeld 1983 demonstrated that dental stone casts poured against contaminated impressions may be medium for cross- contamination between patients and dental personnel. (2) Ray and Fuller 1963 showed a contamination with Mycobacterium tuberculosis of 12% of the dental impressions of patients with known tuberculosis. ![]() (1) Therefore, all impressions should be handled in the same way as an impression from a high risk patient. The cross- infection control guide published by the British Dental Association states that “the only safe approach to routine treatment is to assume that every patient may be a carrier of an infectious disease”. Dental instruments, worktops and equipments are being sterilized or disinfected in dental surgery to avoid cross infection from one patient to another and from patient to operator or dental surgery assistant. Infection control is imperative in dental practice. Disinfection of impression materials should be mandatory to prevent cross-infection. Povidine-Iodine and Isopropyl Alcohol were found to be less effective than Peracetic Acid, Glutaraldehyde and Sodium Hypochlorite, but were effective than the control group. Conclusions: Peracetic Acid was found most effective followed by Glutaraldehyde and Sodium Hypochlorite the latter disinfectants were comparable in their antimicrobial effect. ![]() All disinfectants showed reduction in microbial growth. ![]() Results: The microbial load on irreversible hydrocolloid impression (dentulous subjects) was observed to be twice than that on the zinc oxide Euginol impression (edentulous subjects). Disinfectants used were Povidine-Iodine, Sodium Hypochlorite, Glutaraldehyde, Peracetic Acid (as immersion) and Isopropyl Alcohol (as spray). Materials and Methods: A total of 30 edentulous and 30 dentulous impressions were made using zinc oxide Eugenol and irreversible hydrocolloid respectively. This in-vivo study evaluated microbial load on impressions (dentulous and edentulous) and the effectiveness of various disinfectants on the reduction of microorganisms from the impression surfaces after immersion and spray disinfection of impressions using five disinfectants for 10 minutes time. ![]() Aim: Dental impressions often carry microorganisms that may cause cross infection from patients to dental staff.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |