Dental-unit water systems (DUWS) harbor bacterial biofilms, which may serve as a haven for pathogens. The aim of this study was to investigate the microbial load of water from DUWS in general dental practices and the biofouling of DUWS tubing. Water and tube samples were taken from 55 dental surgeries in southwestern England. Contamination was determined by viable counts on environmentally selective, clinically selective, and pathogen-selective media, and biofouling was determined by using microscopic and image analysis techniques. Microbial loading ranged from 500 to 10 5 CFU ⅐ ml ؊1; in 95% of DUWS water samples, it exceeded European Union drinking water guidelines and in 83% it exceeded American Dental Association DUWS standards. Among visible bacteria, 68% were viable by BacLight staining, but only 5% of this "viable by BacLight" fraction produced colonies on agar plates. Legionella pneumophila, Mycobacterium spp., Candida spp., and Pseudomonas spp. were detected in one, five, two, and nine different surgeries, respectively. Presumptive oral streptococci and Fusobacterium spp. were detected in four and one surgeries, respectively, suggesting back siphonage and failure of antiretraction devices. Hepatitis B virus was never detected. Decontamination strategies (5 of 55 surgeries) significantly reduced biofilm coverage but significantly increased microbial numbers in the water phase (in both cases, P < 0.05). Microbial loads were not significantly different in DUWS fed with soft, hard, deionized, or distilled water or in different DUWS (main, tank, or bottle fed). Microbiologically, no DUWS can be considered "cleaner" than others. DUWS deliver water to patients with microbial levels exceeding those considered safe for drinking water.

Dental unit water system (DUWS) tubing harbors complex multispecies biofilms that are responsible for high microbial levels at the distal outlet. The aim of this study was to use an established biofilm laboratory model to simulate biofouling of DUWS to evaluate practical, cost-effective, and evidence-based methods of microbial decontamination. Reproducible biofilms were developed in the model over 14 days; decontamination was assessed using total viable counts (TVC) and microscopic-image analysis techniques to view the inner surface of tubing. Flushing did not reduce the biofilm coverage or TVC. Combizyme and ozone did not completely eliminate the viable bacteria (70 and 65% reduction in biofilm TVC, respectively), nor did they remove the biofilm (45 and 57% reduction in biofilm coverage, respectively). Chlorhexidine and Bio2000 (active agent: ethanol and chlorhexidine), Tegodor and Gigasept Rapid (aldehyde based), and Grotanol (hydroxide based) completely eliminated the TVC but did not completely remove biofilm (31, 53 33, 34, and 64.9% reduction of biofilm coverage, respectively). Other products including Grotanol Flussig (phenol based), Betadine (povidone-iodine based), Alpron (chlorite based), and the hydroxide-containing products Sporklenz, Sterilex Ultra, Dialox, Sterilox, Sanosil, Oxigenal, and Grotanat Bohrerbad resulted in a 100% reduction in the biofilm TVC and a >95% reduction in biofilm coverage. The study demonstrated that while many disinfectants achieve a sufficient reduction in TVC they may not necessarily remove unwanted biofilm from the tubing surfaces as tested in this laboratory-controlled biofilm model.

No abstract

A range of opportunistic pathogens have been associated with dental unit water systems (DUWS), particularly in the biofilms that can line the tubing. This study therefore aimed to assess the microbiology of DUWS and biofilms in general dental practices across seven European countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland (IRL), Greece (GR), Spain (ES), Germany (D), Denmark (DK) and the Netherlands (NL). Water supplied by 51% of 237 dental unit water lines exceeded current American Dental Association recommendations of < or = 200 colony-forming units (CFU) ml(-1). Microbiological loading of the source waters was between 0 (Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain) and 4.67 (IRL) log CFU ml(-1); water line samples from the DUWS ranged from 1.52 (ES) to 2.79 (GR) log CFU ml(-1); and biofilm counts ranged from 1.49 (GR) to 3.22 (DK) log CFU.cm(-2). Opportunistic pathogens such as legionellae (DK and ES), including Legionella pneumophila SG1 (DK and GR), and Mycobacterium spp. (DK, NL, GR, D and ES) were recovered occasionally. Presumptive oral streptococci (ES and NL), oral anaerobes (GR), Candida spp. (UK, NL and ES) and blood (GR and IRL) were detected at relatively low frequencies, but their presence indicated a failure of the 3-in-1 antiretraction valve, leading to back siphonage of oral fluids into the water and biofilm phase. These findings confirm that a substantial proportion of DUWS have high levels of microbial contamination, irrespective of country, type of equipment and source water. The study emphasizes the need for effective mechanisms to reduce the microbial burden within DUWS, and highlights the risk of occupational exposure and cross-infection in general dental practice.

Water delivered by dental unit water systems (DUWS) in general dental practices can harbor high numbers of bacteria, including opportunistic pathogens. Biofilms on tubing within DUWS provide a reservoir for microorganisms and should be controlled. This study compared disinfection products for their ability to meet the American Dental Association's guideline of <200 CFU · ml ؊1 for DUWS water. Alpron, BioBlue, Dentosept, Oxygenal, Sanosil, Sterilex Ultra, and Ster4Spray were tested in DUWS (n ‫؍‬ 134) in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Weekly water samples were tested for total viable counts (TVCs) on yeast extract agar, and, where possible, the effects of products on established biofilm (TVCs) were measured. A 4-to 5-week baseline measurement period was followed by 6 to 8 weeks of disinfection (intermittent or continuous product application). DUWS water TVCs before disinfection ranged from 0 to 5.41 log CFU · ml ؊1 . Disinfectants achieved reductions in the median water TVC ranging from 0.69 (Ster4Spray) to 3.11 (Dentosept) log CFU · ml ؊1 , although occasional high values (up to 4.88 log CFU · ml ؊1 ) occurred with all products. Before treatment, 64% of all baseline samples exceeded American Dental Association guidelines, compared to only 17% following commencement of treatment; where tested, biofilm TVCs were reduced to below detectable levels. The antimicrobial efficacies of products varied (e.g., 91% of water samples from DUWS treated with Dentosept or Oxygenal met American Dental Association guidelines, compared to 60% of those treated with Ster4Spray). Overall, the continuously applied products performed better than those applied intermittently. The most effective products were Dentosept and Oxygenal, although Dentosept gave the most consistent and sustained antimicrobial effect over time.