Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography

Abstract

Objectives: (1) To compare the efficacy of a commercially available hygienic sheath and an alternative plastic bag in preventing contamination of the imaging plate during intraoral radiography and (2) to compare patient discomfort when using the hygienic sheath and the plastic bag. Methods: 60 sterilized Size 2 imaging plates covered with either the hygienic sheath (n 5 30) or the plastic bag (n 5 30) were used to simulate digital periapical radiographic examination in 30 volunteer patients. After disinfection, each plate was swabbed. The swabbed medium was then plated on trypticase soy agar and incubated. Bacterial colonies were counted. Patient discomfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score. The comparison of the number of bacterial colonies and VAS scores between the two groups was tested by paired t-test at p , 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies between the two groups (p 5 0.745). Of all the plates, 10% plates yielded bacterial colonies. The mean count of bacterial colonies for both groups was 10-20 CFU ml 21 . However, there was a significant difference between VAS scores for the two systems (p 5 0.000). The mean VAS scores (range 0-10) for patient discomfort for the hygienic sheath group and the plastic bag group were 3.03 and 5.33, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the design of this study, the alternative barrier provided similar results to those commercially available. Regarding the type of barrier envelope, the hygienic sheath induced less discomfort than the plastic bag.

Turkish adaptation and implementation of the modified infection control questionnaire in intraoral digital imaging

“…Digital imaging in dentistry is rapidly spreading ( 6 ). Despite the advantages of lower radiation doses by comparison with conventional film-based radiography – the elimination of chemical processing and the need for storage, for instance – traditional methods remain the norm, and infection control has become a substantial problem ( 22 ).…”

“…Cross-infection may occur during all dental procedures ( 4 ). One of these procedures is intraoral digital imaging ( 5 , 6 ). As radiology clinics see many patients in a short period, infection control precautions must be taken in a strict manner ( 2 ).…”

Protocols to control contamination and strategies to optimize the clinical practice in Restorative Dentistry during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Another concern dentists should be aware during this period is the need for intra-oral radiographic examinations. While performing this examination, all care must be taken to avoid contamination, through contact with saliva, of objects like: x-ray apparatus, lead apron, radiographic sensor or film, film holders, and development booth [47][48][49].…”

“…The film and/or sensor should preferably be protected with a plastic or disposable latex cover [47,49]. After the x-ray take, non-sterilizable intraoral devices for digital radiography and conventional radiographic films require rigorous decontamination after use, since both the digital radiography sensor and the radiographic film have direct contact with the patient's saliva [47].…”

Factors Affecting Compliance of Infection Control Measures among Dental Radiographers

“…In intraoral digital radiography, unlike X-ray films, the same digital image detector is used for all patients but cannot be heat-sterilized [ 13 ]. This necessitates the use of protective barriers to cover the digital detectors in order to prevent contamination.…”