The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12663-010-0110-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose To comparatively evaluate the efficacy of a pencil type wire twister and the normal wire twister in terms of various parameters during arch bars application. Method The study involved residents of the department enrolled in MDS course. Two study groups of 60 patients each were made by randomly selecting the patients from the outpatient department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery who required arch bar application. Group A included the patients who underwent upper and lower arch bar application with the use of a pencil type twister and group B included patients who underwent arch bar application with a normal wire twister. All respondents were given a questionnaire after the completion of procedure involving the use of medical sharps. The paired samples t test was used for statistical analysis. Result Among group A, mean glove perforations, actual wire stick injuries, mean time taken to complete the procedure, mean wire breakage during the procedure was less than in group B. Comfort level of patients and Ease of operator while performing the procedure was more in group A than in group B. Frictional abrasion of the finger was not associated with the use of pencil type twister. Overall rating of the procedure was more in group A than group B.Conclusion The use of pencil type wire twister outweighs normal wire twister in various ways. It increases the overall efficacy of the operator during the procedure.

No abstract

Occupational exposures to blood borne pathogens can occur as a result of percutaneous injuries during periodontal procedures. Detailed attention to the pattern of injuries could help in developing improved strategies to further minimize their incidence. We surveyed 12 residents enrolled in the Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) course for one year to find out how many percutaneous injuries occurred during periodontal procedures. Survey questionnaire inquired in detail about the circumstances, site and the nature of injury. We also noted the risk status of patient and device which caused the injury. A total of 48 percutaneous injuries (7.84%) were received in 612 periodontal interventions consisting of 265 surgical and 670 non surgical procedures in the 1 year survey. the injury rate was 4/year/resident and individual residents suffered from 2-7 injuries during the study. the difference in number of percutaneous injuries sustained in surgical periodontal procedures (41/265) was highly significant statistically (p<0.0001) when compared to those in non surgical interventions (7/670). Most injuries occurred from suture needle followed by Castroviejo and injection needle. there is a low probability of occupational transmission of blood borne diseases in periodontal procedures. The findings of this study could possibly contribute further in efforts to reduce the incidence of percutaneous injuries during periodontal procedures.

the objective of the present study was to remove the ambiguity in usage of terms Glove perforations (GP) and Sharp injuries (SI) equivalently. A 6 months prospective study was conducted involving the use of double gloving practice for the procedures needing medical sharps in maxillofacial surgery. total of 270 procedures were performed. GP's and SI's were analysed. the data revealed total of 400 GP's including 290 outer GP and 110 inner GP and 80 SI. Out of 80 SI, 65 were superficial and 15 were deep injuries. Out of total 270 patients, 25 were high risk patients. Only 5 significant exposures were observed which were a part of high risk patient group. this study concludes: every GP is not always SI but every SI is a GP. Risk of SI increases with inner GP but it is also not necessary that every inner GP leads to SI. A modified surveillance and a new algorithm are also proposed which can be a part of guidelines for occupational safety and health.