Ganavadiya Rahul, Chandra Shekar B R, Saxena Vrinda, Tomar Poonam, Gupta Ruchika, Khandelwal Garima
Department of Public Health Dentistry, People's Dental Academy, Bhanpur, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dental College and Hospital, JSS University, Mysore, Bangalore, India.
J Basic Clin Pharm. 2014 Sep;5(4):98-104. doi: 10.4103/0976-0105.141946.
Cross infection remains one of the major challenges in the dental profession, especially in field settings. Transmission of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and human immunodeficiency virus have raised a major concern for patients and dental staff. These risks can be eliminated by effective sterilization and disinfection techniques.
The aim was to compare the disinfecting efficacy of three chemical disinfectants on contaminated diagnostic instruments.
This was a randomized, cross over trial conducted among three participants selected from a research laboratory, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
The study participants were examined 4 times on different days. Each time, the coded mouth mirrors of different make were used, and the disinfection was accomplished using coded disinfectants. The reduction in total viable count was compared between the three groups (2% glutaraldehyde, 6% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and 99.9% ethyl alcohol) with distilled water as negative control and autoclaving as a positive control. Furthermore, the predisinfection count was compared between the instruments of different make.
Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test and One-way ANOVA. The statistical significance was fixed at 0.05.
Autoclaved instruments resulted in complete elimination of viable micro-organisms. Maximum reduction in microbial load was observed after disinfection with H2O2 followed by glutaraldehyde, ethyl alcohol and distilled water in descending order. Furthermore, maximum microbial contamination was recorded on locally manufactured mirrors, while standard plain mirrors showed least contamination.
Although, a significant reduction in total viable count was observed with all the disinfectants evaluated in the present study, none of the disinfectants was successful in completely eliminating the viable micro-organisms.
交叉感染仍然是牙科行业面临的主要挑战之一，尤其是在现场环境中。乙型肝炎、丙型肝炎和人类免疫缺陷病毒的传播引起了患者和牙科工作人员的重大关注。这些风险可以通过有效的灭菌和消毒技术消除。
目的是比较三种化学消毒剂对受污染诊断器械的消毒效果。
这是一项随机交叉试验，在从印度中央邦博帕尔的一个研究实验室挑选的三名参与者中进行。
在不同日期对研究参与者进行4次检查。每次使用不同品牌的编码口镜，并使用编码消毒剂进行消毒。将三组（2%戊二醛、6%过氧化氢（H2O2）和99.9%乙醇）的总活菌数减少情况与作为阴性对照的蒸馏水和作为阳性对照的高压灭菌进行比较。此外，还比较了不同品牌器械的消毒前计数。
采用配对t检验和单因素方差分析进行统计分析。统计学显著性设定为0.05。
经高压灭菌的器械可完全消除活菌。用H2O2消毒后微生物负荷降低最多，其次是戊二醛、乙醇和蒸馏水，降序排列。此外，当地制造的镜子上记录的微生物污染最多，而标准平面镜的污染最少。
虽然在本研究中评估的所有消毒剂都观察到总活菌数有显著减少，但没有一种消毒剂能成功完全消除活菌。
