Sterilisation of re-usable instruments in general dental practice

Smith, Andrew; Bagg, J.; Hurrell, D.; McHugh, S.

doi:10.1038/bdj.2007.912

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Therefore, it is advisable to increase the diffusion of information regarding infection control and to emphasize the use of BIs as a routine process of monitoring the sterilizing equipment. 20 The limitations in our study were the positive BIs were not plated and viewed microscopically to confirm the presence of the test organisms and rule out contamination. But for each sample, a positive control (bacterial growth), a negative control (absence of bacterial growth), and a culture medium control were used and the investigators were standardized to identify the presence (positive results) or absence (negative results) of bacterial growth in the …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Biologic monitoring and causes of failure in cycles of sterilization in dental care offices in Mexico

Patiño-Marín

Martínez-Castañón

Zavala-Alonso

et al. 2015

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Biologic monitoring and causes of failure in cycles of sterilization in dental care offices in Mexico

Patiño-Marín

Martínez-Castañón

Zavala-Alonso

et al. 2015

American Journal of Infection Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The reusable critical instruments classified as being at high risk of infection primarily include invasive instrumentation (sensors, ... curette), and must be sterilized and kept sterile between each use. Other components of prevention, such as the presence of a dedicated area for the instrument cleaning, disinfections of surfaces, systematic hand washing, changing gloves after each patient, management of waste disposal, and water lines were not covered by the present study [ 43 , 44 ]. As our data originate from self-administered questionnaires, their validity may not be optimal, with a possible overestimation of adherence due to desirability bias, namely failure to report inadequate implementation of procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observance of Sterilization Protocol Guideline Procedures of Critical Instruments for Preventing Iatrogenic Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in Dental Practice in France, 2017

Bourgeois

Deroanne

Saliasi

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effective sterilization of reusable instruments contaminated by Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in dental care is a crucial issue for public health. The present cross-sectional study investigated how the recommended procedures for sterilization were implemented by French dental practices in real-world settings. A sample of dental practices was selected in the French Rhône-Alpes region. Data were collected by a self-questionnaire in 2016. Sterilization procedures (n = 33) were classified into 4 groups: (1) Pre-sterilization cleaning of reusable instruments; (2) Biological verification of sterilization cycles—Monitoring steam sterilization procedures; (3) Autoclave performance and practitioner knowledge of autoclave use; (4) Monitoring and documentation of sterilization procedures—Tracking and tracing the instrumentation. Answers were provided per procedure, along with the global implementation of procedures within a group (over 80% correctly performed). Then it was verified how adherence to procedure groups varied with the size of the dental practice and the proportion of dental assistants within the team. Among the 179 questionnaires available for the analyses, adherence to the recommended procedures of sterilization noticeably varied between practices, from 20.7% to 82.6%. The median percentages of procedures correctly implemented per practice were 58.1%, 50.9%, 69.2% and 58.2%, in Groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively (corresponding percentages for performing over 80% of the procedures in the group: 23.4%, 6.6%, 46.6% and 38.6%). Dental practices ≥ 3 dental units performed significantly better (>80%) procedures of Groups 2 and 4 (p = 0.01 and p = 0.002, respectively), while no other significant associations emerged. As a rule, practices complied poorly with the recommended procedures, despite partially improved results in bigger practices. Specific training regarding sterilization procedures and a better understanding of the reasons leading to their non-compliance are needed.

show abstract

“…The first technology assessment 002/10 12 provides advice on the question: 'what is the evidence for a change in current practice of keeping dental instruments clean but unwrapped after sterilisation and before use?' Firstly, this question is based on an incorrect assumption; the evidence from our survey work 15,16 demonstrated that current practice by the majority of dental practices in Scotland is to wrap instruments after sterilisation (some 70% using type N sterilisers and 50% using type B sterilisers wrapped dental instruments after sterilising and before use). Since the majority of dental practitioners are already wrapping their instruments it seems difficult to determine how the figure of an additional £24 million was calculated.…”

Section: Opinion Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%