Reduction of microbial contamination in dental units with povidone-iodine 10%

Mills, Shannon E.; Lauderdale, Patricia W.; Mayhew, Robert B.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1986.0178

Cited by 43 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The other products, including Dialox, Sporklenz, Sterilex Ultra, Betadine (20), Alpron, Sterilox, Sanosil, Oxigenal, Grotanol Flussig, and Grotanat Bohrerbad, resulted in a complete elimination of viable bacteria in biofilm and an almost total removal of biofilm coverage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiological Evaluation of a Range of Disinfectant Products To Control Mixed-Species Biofilm Contamination in a Laboratory Model of a Dental Unit Water System

Walker¹,

Bradshaw²,

Fulford

et al. 2003

Appl Environ Microbiol

137

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiological Evaluation of a Range of Disinfectant Products To Control Mixed-Species Biofilm Contamination in a Laboratory Model of a Dental Unit Water System

Walker¹,

Bradshaw²,

Fulford

et al. 2003

Appl Environ Microbiol

137

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…), Bacillus spp., Streptococcus spp., CoNS, Micrococcus spp., and Corynebacterium spp. (138). Legionella pneumophila has also been isolated from these systems (8,23,155).…”

Section: Dental Unit Water Linesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though biofilms were first described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the theory describing the biofilm process was not developed until 1978. We now understand that biofilms are universal, occurring in aquatic and industrial water systems as well as a large number of environments and medical devices relevant for public health. Using tools such as the scanning electron microscope and, more recently, the confocal laser scanning microscope, biofilm researchers now understand that biofilms are not unstructured, homogeneous deposits of cells and accumulated slime, but complex communities of surface-associated cells enclosed in a polymer matrix containing open water channels. Further studies have shown that the biofilm phenotype can be described in terms of the genes expressed by biofilm-associated cells. Microorganisms growing in a biofilm are highly resistant to antimicrobial agents by one or more mechanisms. Biofilm-associated microorganisms have been shown to be associated with several human diseases, such as native valve endocarditis and cystic fibrosis, and to colonize a wide variety of medical devices. Though epidemiologic evidence points to biofilms as a source of several infectious diseases, the exact mechanisms by which biofilm-associated microorganisms elicit disease are poorly understood. Detachment of cells or cell aggregates, production of endotoxin, increased resistance to the host immune system, and provision of a niche for the generation of resistant organisms are all biofilm processes which could initiate the disease process. Effective strategies to prevent or control biofilms on medical devices must take into consideration the unique and tenacious nature of biofilms. Current intervention strategies are designed to prevent initial device colonization, minimize microbial cell attachment to the device, penetrate the biofilm matrix and kill the associated cells, or remove the device from the patient. In the future, treatments may be based on inhibition of genes involved in cell attachment and biofilm formation

show abstract

“…An analysis of the microbial counts from each of the six units included in the study (Tables 1-4) (2) 24 (2) 2 (2) 2 (0) Baseline 1525 (0) 4875 (0) 100,000 500 (1) 1695 (0) 2625 (615) (100,000) (4) 184 ( (2) 262 (4) 214 ( (18) 158 (2) 4 (2) 0 (0) There have been several attempts to reduce the microbial contamination of dental unit water lines including autoclaving of handpieces, handpiece replacement between patients, flushing of the unit prior to use, 'anti-contamination' devices to prevent retrograde aspiration of oral secretions into the water supply line, 19 connection to a separate water supply (for example, connection to bottles of distilled water), ultra-violet radiation disinfection and the use of in-line water filters. 3,[20][21][22] Many workers have suggested treatment with various disinfectant solutions, including hydrogen peroxide, 23 chlorhexidine gluconate, 24 sodium hypochlorite, 25,26 chlorine dioxide, 27 povidone-iodine, 28 Listerine mouthwash 29 and electro-chemically activated water. 30 These have been developed and implemented in many dental practices with mixed long-term results.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%