Efficacy of Different Disinfectant Systems on Alginate and Addition Silicone Impression Materials of Indian and International Origin: A Comparative Evaluation
Tóm tắt
Study was planned to evaluate the efficacy of commonly used disinfectants and to study qualitatively and quantitatively the persistence of microflora on the untreated (control group) and the disinfected impression surface after 24 h. Disinfectant systems used were immersion systems like glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite and the ultraviolet chamber. The effect of disinfectant on most commonly used Indian impression materials was carried out in this study and results compared with the most commonly used foreign brands for irreversible hydrocolloid and addition silicone. Impressions were made of 25 healthy volunteers. These were disinfected and incubated in an incubator for 24 h at 37°C for aerobic organisms. The inoculation in nutrient media was done to test the viability of microorganisms that can persist after rinsing and disinfection of the impression surface. The colony forming units were counted and compared with that of control group. Control group of all the impression material samples showed growth of Streptococcus viridans, Diphtheroids, Streptococcus pneumoniae to a greater extent. The growth of Candida albicans, Pseudomonas aerugenosa and Staphyloccus albus was present in all the groups but to a lesser extent. The persistence of the microflora on the impression surface of both the studied brands was similar but the concentration of organisms in the alginate control group was two folds as compared to addition silicone group. Use of ultraviolet chamber gave better results compared to the studied immersion systems. All the disinfection systems were effective in reducing the microbial load with ultraviolet chamber as the most effective.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Emphasis PS (1986) Infection control in dental office: a realistic approach. J Am Dent Assoc 112:458–468. PMID 3457849
Crawford JJ (1985) To treat or not to treat AIDS and Hepatitis B victims. CDA J 13:25
Al-Omari WM, Jones JC, Wood DJ (1998) The effect of disinfecting alginate and addition cured silicone rubber impression materials on the physical properties of impressions and the resultant casts. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 6:103–110
American Dental Council on Scientific Affairs and ADA Council on Dental Practice (1996) Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 127:672–680
Boylon RJ, Goldstein GR, Schulman A (1987) Evaluation of an ultraviolet disinfection unit. J Prosthet Dent 58:650–654. PMID 3119822
Ishida H, Nahara Y, Tamamoto M, Hamada T (1991) The fungicidal effect of ultraviolet light on impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 65:532–535
Storer R, McCabe JF (1981) An investigation of methods available for sterilising impressions. Br Dent J 151:217–219
Rowe AH, Forrest JO (1978) Dental impressions: the probability of contamination and a method of disinfection. Br Dent J 145:184–186
Minagi S, Fukushima K, Maeda N, Satomi K, Ohkawa S, Akagawa Y et al (1986) Disinfection methods for impression materials: freedom from hepatitis B and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. J Prosthet Dent 56:451–454
Drennon DG, Johnson GH, Powell GL (1989) The accuracy and efficacy of disinfection by spray atomization on elastomeric impressions. J Prosthet Dent 62:468–475
Look JO, Clay DJ, Gong K, Messer HH (1990) Preliminary results from disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions. J Prosthet Dent 63:701–707
Powell GL, Runnells RD, Saxon BA, Whisenant BK (1990) The presence and identification of organisms transmitted to dental laboratories. J Prosthet Dent 64:235–237
Samaranayake LP, Hunjan M, Jennings KJ (1991) Carriage of oral flora on irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 65:244–249