Walker Natalie, Burke F J Trevor, Palenik Charles J
The University of Birmingham, School of Dentistry, Birmingham, UK.
Prim Dent Care. 2006 Apr;13(2):51-6. doi: 10.1308/135576106776337904.
Ultrasonic cleaning is an effective method for cleaning dental instruments prior to sterilisation. However, there are few studies that directly compare precleaning and ultrasonic cleaning solutions. This study evaluated the efficacy of different ultrasonic cleaning schemes.
Twenty representative dental instruments, five of which were soiled with a mixture of blood and hydroxyapatite, were used in a series of cleaning runs. Cleaning employed a presoaking agent, ultrasonic cleaning, or a combination of both. Two presoaking agents (Non-ionic Ultrasonic Cleaning Solution and ProEZ Foaming Enzymatic Spray) plus five ultrasonic cleaners (UltraDose, General Purpose Cleaner, Co-enzyme Concentrate, Enzol Enzymatic Detergent, and Non-ionic Ultrasonic Cleaning Solution) were compared, with tap water serving as a control. There were two cleaning times: seven and 15 minutes. After rinsing, the working ends of the instruments underwent scrubbing for 20 seconds using a dental polishing brush held in a haemostat. After scrubbing, the brush and instrument were placed in a tube containing sterile saline. Vortexing of the tube lasted 30 seconds. Testing for the post-cleaning presence of blood involved Hemastix dipsticks. These sticks measure minute amounts of blood in urine and can detect as few as 35 red blood cells per ml. Comparisons of colour change were made to a standard scale followed by assignment of numeric values.
Tap water was the poorest cleaning solution, while UltraDose was the most effective. Blood removal improved when cleaning time was increased from seven to 15 minutes. The combined effect of a presoak immersion followed by ultrasonic cleaning was the most effective cleaning scheme overall. Cleaning by either ultrasound or presoaking only was less effective. Some instruments were more difficult to clean than others.
Within the constraints of the small number of test runs performed, it was concluded that application of a presoak agent before ultrasonic cleaning produced the most effective instrument-cleaning regimen.
超声清洗是在消毒前清洁牙科器械的有效方法。然而,直接比较预清洁和超声清洗溶液的研究很少。本研究评估了不同超声清洗方案的效果。
使用20件具有代表性的牙科器械,其中5件被血液和羟基磷灰石的混合物污染,进行一系列清洗试验。清洗采用预浸泡剂、超声清洗或两者结合的方式。比较了两种预浸泡剂(非离子超声清洗液和ProEZ泡沫酶喷雾)以及五种超声清洗剂(UltraDose、通用清洁剂、辅酶浓缩液、Enzol酶洗涤剂和非离子超声清洗液),以自来水作为对照。有两个清洗时间:7分钟和15分钟。冲洗后,用止血钳夹住的牙科抛光刷对器械的工作端进行20秒的刷洗。刷洗后,将刷子和器械放入装有无菌盐水的试管中。试管涡旋30秒。使用Hemastix试纸条检测清洗后是否有血液残留。这些试纸条可测量尿液中的微量血液,每毫升可检测低至35个红细胞。将颜色变化与标准比色卡进行比较,然后赋予数值。
自来水是效果最差的清洗液,而UltraDose是最有效的。当清洗时间从7分钟增加到15分钟时,血液清除效果有所改善。预浸泡后再进行超声清洗的综合效果是总体上最有效的清洗方案。仅通过超声或预浸泡进行清洗的效果较差。有些器械比其他器械更难清洗。
在进行的少量测试运行的限制范围内,得出的结论是,在超声清洗前应用预浸泡剂可产生最有效的器械清洗方案。