A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs

Whitworth, Christine; Martin, Michael V.; Gallagher, Malcolm; Worthington, Helen V

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4811832

Cited by 34 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fi rst stage involved a postal questionnaire to determine the proportion of specialist orthodontic practitioners who perform clinical photography and the cleaning techniques such as washer-disinfectors include minimal handling of instruments reducing the risk of accidental injury, a reproducible closed cycle and production of a printed record verifying that the correct cycle has been achieved. 5 Smith et al 25 have also shown that the instrument shape and material might affect how well it is cleaned prior to sterilisation. They found that 98% of their sample of endodontic fi les used in general practice retained visible debris after washing, with a median amount of 5.4 μg residual protein.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inadequacy of manual methods compared with the ultrasonic washer has been shown several times. 5,21,22 Cafruny et al 21 used an IgG marker to test for blood contamination on dental instruments following a routine prophylaxis and found that ultrasonic cleaning was both more effective and more consistent at reduced blood contamination than hand washing. Lowe et al, 10 using the Kastle-Meyer test for blood, found that a far smaller proportion of matrix bands and their retainers had residual contamination following ultrasonic cleaning compared with those washed by hand.…”

Section: Infective Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include visual inspection, 7 culturing and examining the growth of bacteria 5,8 and detecting the presence of blood contamination. [9][10][11] Although dentistry is considered a low risk for transmission of the disease, the emergence of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) has emphasised the need to fi nd techniques to establish that adequate cleaning and sterilisation of all instruments that are used and reused on patients have been carried out.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The cleaning of photographic retractors; a survey, clinical and laboratory study

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Infective Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The cleaning of photographic retractors; a survey, clinical and laboratory study

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…13,14 Little information exists on the effectiveness of the washer disinfector, although some research has showed that it is an effective cleaning method for dental instruments 15 and dental burs. 16 There has been no specifi c the canals. The coronal one-third of each head was inserted in a cubic box full of study on the cleaning of endodontic fi les canal was prepared using Gates Glidden wax in order to make it stable under the using a washer disinfector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning endodontic files in a washer disinfector

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• Washer disinfectors are becoming more commonly used in general dental practice.• This work was designed to see if washer disinfectors could cope with the diffi cult challenge of cleaning small instruments with a complex surface structure.• Although the files treated in the washer disinfector were generally clean, they were not totally free of organic debris.• This work reinforces the view that endodontic files should be single-use only. I N B R I E F RESEARCHAims The aim of this study was to compare the cleanliness of endodontic files that had been cleaned in a washer dis infector according to the file holding mechanism within the machine. Methodology Selected canals of extracted teeth were filed with new, unused files. One set of files (size 15 to 40) was used for each canal. A total of 192 files were used for cleaning and shaping. The files were divided into three groups. The first group was a control group containing 30 fi les, which were not cleaned in the washer disinfector. The second and the third groups were the experimental groups with 81 files in each group. These files were cleaned in the washer disinfector using different holding mechanisms (fi le holder or cleaning basket) for each group. The files were examined for visible debris under a light microscope at x45 magnifi ca tion. Results None of the 162 cleaned files were totally free of organic debris. Comparison of the debris scores in the two experimental groups showed that the files in the cleaning basket group were significantly cleaner than those in the fi le holder group. The files in both test groups were significantly cleaner than those in the control group. Conclusions En dodontic files cannot be totally cleaned using a washer disinfector alone. The instrument holding mechanism within the machine has a significant effect on the cleanliness of the files after one intensive cleaning cycle.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the sterilization of dental burs before and after clinical use is essential to prevent cross-infection. 1 The use of effective infection control procedures in the dental office will prevent crosscontamination that may extend to dentist, dental staff, dental technician, and patients. 2,3 Precleaning and sterilization of dental burs become difficult because of their small size and complex architecture.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Various Cold Sterilization Techniques on Routinely used Carbide Burs and Diamond Points

Ranganathan¹,

Manvi²,

Gopalakrishna³

et al. 2017

International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study is to compare the various cold sterilization techniques for sterilizing dental burs and diamond points by assessing the microbial growth in culture media on them before and after sterilization. Materials and methods:The following four disinfectants were used: 2% glutaraldehyde, 5.2% sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, and 70% ethanol. There were two main groups taken as group I-carbide burs and group II-diamond burs. A total of 48 samples were collected, 12 samples per disinfectant. Each sample has two burs collected from same patient. One acts as control group which means only microbial count was determined without disinfection. The other one would be determined as microbial count before and after disinfection. The microbial assessment was done using brain heart infusion (BHI) broth and counted by plating in chocolate blood agar and MacConkey agar. Results:The obtained results were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and post hoc test. The results revealed that there was statistically significant difference between sodium hypochlorite and surgical spirit, sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide. There was no statistically significant difference between sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde. Conclusion:The results of this study revealed that sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde are most effective than hydrogen peroxide, and surgical spirit is the least effective disinfectant. However, there was clinical significance in level of disinfection of all four disinfectants.

show abstract

A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs

Cited by 34 publications

References 17 publications

The cleaning of photographic retractors; a survey, clinical and laboratory study

The cleaning of photographic retractors; a survey, clinical and laboratory study

Cleaning endodontic files in a washer disinfector

Comparison of Various Cold Sterilization Techniques on Routinely used Carbide Burs and Diamond Points

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About