Al Shikh Ayesha, Milosevic Alexander
Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University (MBRU) of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Department of Prosthodontics, Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University (MBRU) of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020 Feb 13;12:25-30. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S233336. eCollection 2020.
The gold standard for disinfection of dental impressions is by immersion although spray techniques are also available. This study compared the effectiveness of alcohol and aldehyde spray disinfectants on analogue dental impressions in a hospital setting.
Impressions were swabbed after removal from the mouth (pre-disinfection) and after spraying (post-disinfection) with either a non-aldehyde alcohol-based disinfectant, Bossklein (Silsden, W Yorks, BD20 0EF, UK) or a glutaraldehyde-based alcohol-free disinfectant, MD520 (Dürr Dental, 74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). Swabs were transported to the microbiology laboratory in Amies medium and plated onto sheep blood agar within 2 hrs. Plates were incubated for 3 days at 37°C then at room temperature for 3 days. After incubation, all plates were examined for microbial growth.
A total of 87 impressions were assessed (alginate = 41; poly-vinyl siloxane (PVS) = 31; polyether = 15). The counts were categorized into two groups: no growth or growth present. Post-disinfection contamination was present on six alginate and six PVS impressions but only one polyether impression (x = 1.27, P > 0.05, NSS). Analysis of post-disinfection growth according to impression and disinfectant found significantly more contaminated PVS impressions with the alcohol-based spray than with the aldehyde spray (x = 5.37, p < 0.05). Disinfection with the aldehyde-based spray resulted in only two contaminated impressions, both in alginate.
Alcohol-based spray disinfection of dental impressions may be less effective than aldehyde spray and full immersion of impressions is recommended. Careful wetting or soaking of all surfaces of impressions is very important when using a spray.
牙科印模消毒的金标准是浸泡法,不过喷雾技术也可用。本研究比较了酒精和醛类喷雾消毒剂在医院环境中对模拟牙科印模的消毒效果。
印模从口中取出后(消毒前)以及用非醛类酒精基消毒剂Bossklein(英国西约克郡锡兹登,BD20 0EF)或戊二醛基无酒精消毒剂MD520(德国迪尔牙科,74321比蒂希海姆 - 比辛根)喷雾后(消毒后)进行擦拭取样。拭子在阿姆斯培养基中运至微生物实验室,并在2小时内接种于羊血琼脂平板上。平板在37°C孵育3天,然后在室温下孵育3天。孵育后,检查所有平板上的微生物生长情况。
共评估了87个印模(藻酸盐印模 = 41个;聚硅氧烷(PVS)印模 = 31个;聚醚印模 = 15个)。计数分为两组:无生长或有生长。消毒后,6个藻酸盐印模和6个PVS印模有污染,但只有1个聚醚印模有污染(x = 1.27,P > 0.05,非参数检验)。根据印模类型和消毒剂对消毒后生长情况的分析发现,与醛类喷雾相比,酒精基喷雾消毒的PVS印模污染明显更多(x = 5.37,p < 0.05)。醛类喷雾消毒仅导致2个印模污染,均为藻酸盐印模。
牙科印模的酒精基喷雾消毒效果可能不如醛类喷雾,建议对印模进行完全浸泡。使用喷雾时,仔细湿润或浸泡印模的所有表面非常重要。