OBJECTIVE: This study examined methods used for reprocessing endodontic instruments in general dental practice and determined the degree of residual visual contamination and blood contamination on 250 reprocessed files collected from 25 general dental practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 25 general dental practitioners to obtain information on the re-processing of used endodontic files. Ten files which had been used and reprocessed were also collected from each practice. These were examined visually under a dissecting light microscope for residual contamination and then tested for blood deposits using the Kastle-Meyer test. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 25 practices used stainless steel hand files. No practitioners used endodontic files as single use devices. Ninety-two per cent of the practitioners discarded and replaced files when they were bent or damaged. Several decontamination methods were reported. The two combinations employed most frequently were manual cleaning and autoclaving or manual cleaning, followed by ultrasonic cleaning and autoclaving. Of the 250 files, 75% showed some degree of visual contamination and seven percent tested positive for residual blood. Blood contaminated files were significantly more heavily contaminated when examined visually. Large variations were found in residual contamination of files collected from practices using the same methods of decontamination. CONCLUSIONS: While all practitioners re-used endodontic files, the variations in decontamination methods reported indicate a lack of clarity on best practice. This study demonstrates that endodontic files are not reliably decontaminated by methods currently employed in dental practice.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined methods used for reprocessing endodontic instruments in general dental practice and determined the degree of residual visual contamination and blood contamination on 250 reprocessed files collected from 25 general dental practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 25 general dental practitioners to obtain information on the re-processing of used endodontic files. Ten files which had been used and reprocessed were also collected from each practice. These were examined visually under a dissecting light microscope for residual contamination and then tested for blood deposits using the Kastle-Meyer test. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 25 practices used stainless steel hand files. No practitioners used endodontic files as single use devices. Ninety-two per cent of the practitioners discarded and replaced files when they were bent or damaged. Several decontamination methods were reported. The two combinations employed most frequently were manual cleaning and autoclaving or manual cleaning, followed by ultrasonic cleaning and autoclaving. Of the 250 files, 75% showed some degree of visual contamination and seven percent tested positive for residual blood. Blood contaminated files were significantly more heavily contaminated when examined visually. Large variations were found in residual contamination of files collected from practices using the same methods of decontamination. CONCLUSIONS: While all practitioners re-used endodontic files, the variations in decontamination methods reported indicate a lack of clarity on best practice. This study demonstrates that endodontic files are not reliably decontaminated by methods currently employed in dental practice.