Preliminary results from disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions

Look, John O; Clay, David; Gong, Ke; Messer, Harold H.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(90)90329-b

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although many have recommended both rinsing and brushing away debris from an impression before disinfection 2,11,13,14,31 it is of concern that in the survey of dentists only 37.2% of respondents rinsed the impressions before disinfection and just two individuals (2.6%) always brushed away debris. This contrasts with the experience encountered in UK dental hospitals where it is claimed that 100% of impressions are rinsed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 DEC 18 2010desirable as rinsing alone does not remove contamination completely. [12][13][14] Of the various methods of disinfectant agent application, immersion is considered to be the most reliable 15,16 because all exposed surfaces of the impression trays and materials are covered by the disinfectant. [17][18][19][20][21] Such a technique, in comparison to spraying, minimises the risks of incomplete coverage and hazard of disinfectant inhalation by the user.…”

Section: In Brief Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[17][18][19][20][21] Such a technique, in comparison to spraying, minimises the risks of incomplete coverage and hazard of disinfectant inhalation by the user. 13 On the other hand, spraying is considered by some as a suitable disinfection method 22 that also decreases the chances of impression distortion 23 that may occur following prolonged immersion. Spraying is however not a preferred method of the British Dental Association 24 and, in their most recent guidance, they recommend only either immersion or dipping, preferring the latter so as to avoid distortion of hydrocolloid and polyether impression materials.…”

Section: In Brief Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards

Almortadi

Chadwick

2010

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: In Brief Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: In Brief Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards

Almortadi

Chadwick

2010

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A wide variety of disinfecting solutions are available in the dental market, but a universally recognised disinfection protocol for dental impressions is lacking because of the varying response of each brand of impression material and gypsum product to different disinfection procedures [11]. A number of studies [3,[21][22][23][24] have investigated a wide variety of brands of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials, disinfecting solutions, and dental stones using a variety of different disinfection protocols, which has led to inconclusive results reported in the dental literature regarding the most efficient protocol for disinfection of dental impressions. The present study was undertaken to evaluate the disinfection protocol applied in the Dublin Dental University Hospital for the brands of irreversible hydrocolloid impression and dental stone currently used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature shows that it is effective against a broad spectrum of micro-organisms including Human Immunodeficiency Virus [26-27], hepatitis B virus [28] as well as numerous other bacterial species [3,[21][22][23][24] and their spores [29], viruses [5,22] and fungi [23].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disinfection procedures: Their efficacy and effect on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of an irreversible hydrocolloid impression material

Rentzia¹,

Coleman²,

O’Donnell³

et al. 2011

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: Rentzia A, Coleman DC, O'Donnell MJ, Dowling AH, O'Sullivan M, Disinfection procedures: their efficacy and effect on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of an irreversible hydrocolloid impression material, Journal of Dentistry (2010Dentistry ( ), doi:10.1016Dentistry ( /j.jdent.2010 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. controls. Dimensional accuracy measurements were completed between fixed points using a travelling microscope under low angle illumination at a magnification of X3.Surface quality changes of "smooth" and "rough" areas on the cast were evaluated by means of optical profilometry. The efficacy of the disinfection procedures againstPseudomonas aeruginosa was evaluated by determining the number of colony forming units (cfu) recovered after disinfection of alginate discs inoculated with 1x10 6 cfu for defined intervals. Results:The dimensional accuracy of the gypsum casts was not significantly affected by the disinfection protocols. Neither disinfectant solution nor immersion time had an effect on the surface roughness of the "smooth" area on the cast, however, a significant increase in surface roughness was observed with increasing immersion time for the "rough" surface. Complete elimination of viable Pseudomonas aeruginosa cells from alginate discs was obtained after 30 and 120 s immersion in Cidex OPA ® and NaOCl, respectively. Conclusions:Immersion of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions in Cidex OPA ® for 30 s was proved to be the most effective disinfection procedure.

show abstract

Contamination level of alginate impressions arriving at a dental laboratory

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contamination level of alginate impressions delivered to a large dental laboratory in Sweden was determined. One hundred and seven consecutive alginate impressions were included during 7 days. Samples were taken and transferred into sterile physiological saline and analysed microbiologically for colony-forming units (cfu) as well as nonhemolytic, α-hemolytic, and β-hemolytic colonies. After sampling, the clinics were contacted and asked to fill in simple questionnaires about their routines of disinfecting impressions. The questionnaire study revealed that about half of the clinics had some kind of disinfection routine, while the others rinsed in running water only. Seventy-two percent of the impressions yielded growth of bacteria, with a median number of 1.3×10 2 cfu. Thirteen per cent of the samples yielded >10 3 cfu, with a maximum number of 3.4×10 4 cfu. The majority of isolates were non-and α-hemolytic bacteria. Growth was recorded in 61.3% of disinfected impressions, and the numbers of bacteria in disinfected and nondisinfected impressions were similar. These findings raise the question of whether impressions need to be disinfected or if proper handling and hygienic procedures are sufficient to block the possible route of infection.

show abstract

Preliminary results from disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards

Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards

Disinfection procedures: Their efficacy and effect on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of an irreversible hydrocolloid impression material

Contamination level of alginate impressions arriving at a dental laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About