Effectiveness of Two Types of Photostimulable Phosphor Plate Plastic Barrier Envelopes for Prevention of Microbiological Contamination

Nikkerdar, Nafiseh; Akya, Alisha; Khavid, Atefeh; Karimi, Atena; Emadi, Setareh

doi:10.1590/pboci.2020.047

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the plates are contaminated before the scanning process through the envelopes, it can cause a cross-contamination risk for the other plates, processing equipment, and finally other patients or clinic staff [ 11 , 19 ]. Hence, additional methods, as using double barriers and/or disinfecting the barriers before removing the sensors, are recommended for effective infection control, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when infection control is even more vital [ 5 , 7 , 11 , 14 , 22 , 32 , 33 ]. Because, intraoral radiographs can trigger the coughing, gagging, retching, or vomiting that produce aerosols that the SARS-CoV 2 can persist in for long periods of time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of enveloping and disinfection methods on artefact formation on enveloped PSP plate images

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate the artefacts caused by different disinfection and protection methods that can be used for infection control of photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates. Methods The plates that were enveloped with single or double envelopes were sprayed with an alcohol-containing solution or wiped with an alcohol-containing tissue. Four PSP groups with two plates in each group were formed ( A = wiping single envelope, B = wiping double envelopes, C = spraying onto single envelope, and D = spraying onto double envelopes). Any artefacts (1 = no artefact, 2 = presence of artefact less than 0.5 cm wide, and 3 = presence of artefact larger than 0.5 cm wide) on the 12 acquired images were evaluated. Results Artefacts (score-3) occurred on the images of Group C-2 PSP plate after the 3rd exposure. According to the Kruskal–Wallis test the difference between the artefact score of the four methods was found significant. Post-hoc comparisons showed the Group C artefact scores were higher than the others and the difference was significant. The total time of enveloping and disinfection processes for groups was; A = 6.30 min, B = 7.58 min, C = 5.48 min, and D = 7.14 min. Conclusions Regardless of the number of envelopes, wiping with a tissue was less likely to cause artefacts, while spraying was reliable only when double envelopes were used. However, using a tissue and double envelopes, which are less risky in terms of artefact, causes time loss, difficulty in manipulation, environmental pollution and high cost.

show abstract