Pathological evaluation for sterilization of routinely used prosthodontic and endodontic instruments

Abstract

Background:In daily practice of dentistry, we use same instruments on many patients. Before use, all instruments must be cleaned, disinfected, and sterilized to prevent any contamination. Pre-cleaning and sterilization of some devices can be difficult because of their small size and complex architecture. Dental burs and endodontic files are such instruments. Dental burs come in a variety of shapes and sizes, all with highly complex and detailed surface features.Aim:To determine the effectiveness of various disinfectants and sterilization techniques for disinfection and resterilization of dental burs and endodontic files.Materials and Methods:The materials used for the study were dental burs and endodontic files. Disinfectants used were Quitanet plus, glutaraldehyde, glass-bead sterilizer, and autoclave. The sterility of used dental burs and endodontic files was analyzed. Burs and files that had been used were pre-cleaned, resterilized, and then tested for various pathogens. Each item was transferred by sterile technique into Todd-Hewitt broth, incubated at 37°C for 72 h, and observed for bacterial growth.Results:The present study shows that the endodontic files and burs sterilized by autoclaving and glutaraldehyde showed complete sterilization. Burs and files immersed in glutaraldehyde (2.4%) for 12 h showed complete sterilization, whereas Quitanet plus solution and glass-bead sterilizer showed incomplete sterilization.Conclusion:The present study results indicate that autoclaving and glutaraldehyde (2.4%) showed complete sterilization. Other methods cannot be relied upon for sterilization.

Management of Instrument Sterilization Workflow in Endodontics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…For such a reason, a fixed-effects model was applied ( Figure 3). As for Kumar et al's [12] study, two 0 values were shown. When the fixed continuity correction was applied, a value of 1 was added to the boxes containing zero, both for the controls and for the other group.…”

“…e following studies were included in the quantitative analysis for the first outcome: Kumar et al [12], Raju et al [16], Venkatasubramanian et al [17], and Hurtt and Rossman [18]. e studies selected for the second outcome were by Hurtt and Rossman [18], Raju et al [16], and Venkatasubramanian et al [17].…”

“…Another suitable method to sterilize the endodontic instruments and dental instruments in general is the use of 2% glutaraldehyde for 12 h. e effectiveness of this method on dental materials has recently been tested and compared to other methods in a study by Kumar et al [12]. e authors compared four autoclave methods, glass-bead glutaraldehyde, and a disinfectant detergent based on benzalkonium chloride.…”

“…Among the most recent studies comparing sterilization procedures, there is the study by Sheth et al [9] which compares 2 (autoclaving and glass bed sterilization) of the 3 main sterilization methods that we are going to examine in this systematic review. Another recent study by Kumar et al [12] investigates the glass-bead sterilization and use of glutaraldehyde.…”

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

“…23 Burs and files sterilized by immersing in glutaraldehyde (2.4%) for 12 hours revealed complete sterilization. 24 However, the chlorine-containing compound was the effective disinfectant against hepatitis B virus than glutaraldehyde, which requires ultrasonication. 25 It is noncorrosive when compared with sodium hypochlorite, so it is safer to use for dental burs; however, glutaraldehyde solutions should be discarded if they become turbid.…”