Evaluation of the risk of infection through exposure to aerosols and spatters in dentistry

Cristina, Maria Luisa; Spagnolo, Anna Maria; Sartini, Marina; Dallera, Maurizio; Ottria, Gianluca; Lombardi, Roberto; Perdelli, Fernanda

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2007.07.019

Cited by 42 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The aerosol generated by the high-speed handpiece also contains bacteria. These findings agree with Cristina et al 4 , who report that this aerosol contains several pathogenic agents that survive on surfaces for long periods of time. In addition to bacteria, the aerosol may contain blood and saliva that may be inhaled by the patient and dentist.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Study of the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine in dental unit water: Evaluation of microbial contamination in the dental Office

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to count anaerobic bacteria before and after the use of dental equipment and to study the influence of chlorhexidine on the dental unit reservoir water.MethodsSterile swabs were used to collect bacterial samples from the cuspidor, lights, syringes, low- and high-speed handpieces, and dental chairs (arms and backrest) before and after the placement of barriers. Blood agar plates were placed on the patient’s and dentist’s forehead and by the patient’s nose and shoulder and exposed to aerosols without (Group 1) and with 0.5% (Group 2) and 1.0% (Group 3) chlorhexidine generated by the high-speed handpiece. Ten aerosol samples were collected for each group. A sample of 1mL of the dental unit reservoir water was collected before and after the use of the high-speed handpiece. The anaerobic bacterial counts were compared by the Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests.ResultsThe contamination on the high-speed handpiece (p=0.0431) and cuspidor (p=0.0117) increased significantly after use. Contamination in the dental unit reservoir water also increased significantly after use of the high-speed handpiece. The most contaminated area was the patient’s nose.ConclusionThe addition of 0.5% and 1.0% chlorhexidine in the dental unit reservoir water reduced the microbial contamination in the dental office significantly.Indexing terms: Bacteria, Anaerobic. Contamination. Dental equipment. Chlorhexidine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The aerosol generated by high-speed handpieces may infect the professionals performing the dental procedure 4 . This infection is usually caused by gram-negative mesophilic, heterophilic, aerobic, and/or facultative anaerobic bacteria, including anaerobic bacilli 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study of the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine in dental unit water: Evaluation of microbial contamination in the dental Office

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, when using the unit glasses spittoon, there is a possibility of contact of this area with the patient's hands and face (especially in children). Therefore, elimination of microbe from this area seems to be an essential (Valian, Shahbazi, Farshidnia, & Tabatabaee, 2014;Cristina et al, 2008). In this regard, various methods have been developed in recent years for disinfection of equipment and various surfaces in the dental office and various studies have been carried out in this regard.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dental stool or dental chair is one of the cases prone to infections due to proximity to the unit and the site for performing the dental practice. Experience has shown that most students and dentists often replace the dental stool with infected gloves, and thereby, they indirectly transmit the infection (Teksoy et al, 2011;Cristina et al, 2008). The unit glasses spittoon is also continuously infected by blood and saliva.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the type of its using by the consumer will affect the result of the work. Based on the reports of different studies on the dental unit infection (Valian, Shahbazi, Farshidnia, & Tabatabaee, 2014;Taheri, Bakianian, Fallah, & Nik Kerdar, 2010;Sultanpour & Sayed, 2001;Cristina et al, 2008;Ardakani et al, 2008), this study was conducted to evaluate the disinfection quality of dental units at Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (AJUMS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Disinfection Quality of Dental Faculty Units of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Southwest of Iran in 2017

Bagheri¹,

Shooriabi²,

Amin³

et al. 2018

JMBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Performing dental practices in the oral environment leads to the transmission of microorganisms in saliva and blood to working surfaces and dental devices and their infection. Preventing transmission of infection through these devices is an important task of a dentist. Hence, this research was conducted to evaluate the disinfection quality of the dental faculty units of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (AJUMS) in Iran. Materials and Methods:In order to evaluate the quality of disinfection of the units, sampling was performed from all glasses spittoon surfaces of 90 units of the clinical unit of the AJUMS dental faculty before and after disinfection by personnel. Then, the bacteria were cultured in a medium and examined. Results:The mean (and standard deviation) of the total infection of units of the dental faculty was 46534.4 (583380.4) colonies per 1 ml before disinfection and 40265.6 (52131.1) colonies per 1 ml after disinfection, reflecting significant decrease in number of bacterial colonies after disinfection (P <0.001). In addition, a significant decrease was seen in the number of bacterial colonies in the restoration, pediatric, orthodontic and diagnosis units (p <0.05), but the difference before and after disinfection was not significant in the prosthetic, endodontic, surgical and periodontal units. In addition, the most common types of microorganisms in the whole units of the dental faculty were pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus, respectively, and after disinfection, the most common types of microorganisms were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus, respectively. Conclusion:In general, this study showed that the disinfection method of units in dental faculty can not reduce the severity of infection of the units. Given what was stated, it is recommended that the method and the substances used to disinfect the unit to be changed.

show abstract

Blood and saliva contamination on protective eyewear during dental treatment

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Dental treatments are inherently associated with the appearance of potentially infective aerosols, blood and saliva splashes. The aim of the present study was to investigate the quantitative contamination of protective eyewear during different dental treatments and the efficacy of the subsequent disinfection. Materials and methods Fifty-three standardized protective eyewear shields worn by students, dentists and dental assistants during different aerosol-producing dental treatment modalities (supragingival cleaning, subgingival periodontal instrumentation, trepanation and root canal treatment and carious cavity preparation; within all treatments, dental evacuation systems were used) were analysed, using common forensic techniques. For detection of blood contamination, luminol solution was applied onto the surface of safety shields. A special forensic test paper was used to visualize saliva contamination. Further analysis was conducted after standardized disinfection using the same techniques. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Results Macroscopically detectable contamination was found on 60.4% of protective eyewear surfaces. A contamination with blood (median 330 pixels, equivalent to 0.3% of the total surface) was detected on all shields after dental treatment. Between various dental treatments, the contamination with blood tend to be statistically significant (p = 0.054). Highest amount of blood was observed after professional tooth cleaning (median 1,087 pixels). Significant differences of saliva contamination were detected between the different measurements (p < 0.001) with contamination only after dental treatment. Due to the low variance and right-skewed distribution for saliva contamination, no statistical analysis between different treatments could be performed. After disinfection, 0.02% blood contamination and no saliva contamination were detected. Conclusions Disinfection is effective against blood and saliva contamination. Macroscopically, clean protective eyewear contains up to 12% surface contamination with blood. Based on the results, it may be concluded that protective eyewear is essential for each dental practitioner. Clinical relevance As standard for infection prevention in the dental practice, disinfection of protective eyewear after each patient is necessary.

show abstract

Evaluation of the risk of infection through exposure to aerosols and spatters in dentistry

Cited by 42 publications

References 8 publications

Study of the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine in dental unit water: Evaluation of microbial contamination in the dental Office

Study of the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine in dental unit water: Evaluation of microbial contamination in the dental Office

Evaluation of Disinfection Quality of Dental Faculty Units of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Southwest of Iran in 2017

Blood and saliva contamination on protective eyewear during dental treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About