Literature DB >> 16461690

Comparison of the efficacies of disinfectants to control microbial contamination in dental unit water systems in general dental practices across the European Union.

A J Schel1, P D Marsh, D J Bradshaw, M Finney, M R Fulford, E Frandsen, E Østergaard, J M ten Cate, W R Moorer, A Mavridou, J J Kamma, G Mandilara, L Stösser, S Kneist, R Araujo, N Contreras, P Goroncy-Bermes, D O'Mullane, F Burke, P O'Reilly, G Hourigan, M O'Sullivan, R Holman, J T Walker.   

Abstract

Water delivered by dental unit water systems (DUWS) in general dental practices can harbor high numbers of bacteria, including opportunistic pathogens. Biofilms on tubing within DUWS provide a reservoir for microorganisms and should be controlled. This study compared disinfection products for their ability to meet the American Dental Association's guideline of <200 CFU x ml(-1) for DUWS water. Alpron, BioBlue, Dentosept, Oxygenal, Sanosil, Sterilex Ultra, and Ster4Spray were tested in DUWS (n = 134) in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Weekly water samples were tested for total viable counts (TVCs) on yeast extract agar, and, where possible, the effects of products on established biofilm (TVCs) were measured. A 4- to 5-week baseline measurement period was followed by 6 to 8 weeks of disinfection (intermittent or continuous product application). DUWS water TVCs before disinfection ranged from 0 to 5.41 log CFU x ml(-1). Disinfectants achieved reductions in the median water TVC ranging from 0.69 (Ster4Spray) to 3.11 (Dentosept) log CFU x ml(-1), although occasional high values (up to 4.88 log CFU x ml(-1)) occurred with all products. Before treatment, 64% of all baseline samples exceeded American Dental Association guidelines, compared to only 17% following commencement of treatment; where tested, biofilm TVCs were reduced to below detectable levels. The antimicrobial efficacies of products varied (e.g., 91% of water samples from DUWS treated with Dentosept or Oxygenal met American Dental Association guidelines, compared to 60% of those treated with Ster4Spray). Overall, the continuously applied products performed better than those applied intermittently. The most effective products were Dentosept and Oxygenal, although Dentosept gave the most consistent and sustained antimicrobial effect over time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16461690      PMCID: PMC1392914          DOI: 10.1128/AEM.72.2.1380-1387.2006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol        ISSN: 0099-2240            Impact factor:   4.792


  48 in total

1.  Microbial biofilm formation and contamination of dental-unit water systems in general dental practice.

Authors:  J T Walker; D J Bradshaw; A M Bennett; M R Fulford; M V Martin; P D Marsh
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.792

2.  Reducing bacterial counts in dental unit waterlines: tap water versus distilled water.

Authors:  James D Kettering; Joni A Stephens; Carlos A Muñoz-Viveros; W Patrick Naylor
Journal:  J Contemp Dent Pract       Date:  2002-08-15

3.  Bacterial succession within a biofilm in water supply lines of dental air-water syringes.

Authors:  B D Tall; H N Williams; K S George; R T Gray; M Walch
Journal:  Can J Microbiol       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.419

4.  Comparison of methods to enumerate bacteria in dental unit water lines.

Authors:  R I Karpay; T J Plamondon; S E Mills
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 2.188

5.  Contribution of biofilm bacteria to the contamination of the dental unit water supply.

Authors:  H N Williams; M L Baer; J I Kelley
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 3.634

6.  Combining periodic and continuous sodium hypochlorite treatment to control biofilms in dental unit water systems.

Authors:  R I Karpay; T J Plamondon; S E Mills; S B Dove
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.634

7.  Laboratory evaluation of anti-biofilm agents for use in dental unit waterlines.

Authors:  T F Meiller; J I Kelley; A A Baqui; L G DePaola
Journal:  J Clin Dent       Date:  2001

Review 8.  Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink?

Authors:  A J Smith; J Hood; J Bagg; F T Burke
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  1999-01-09       Impact factor: 1.626

9.  Serological examinations for antibodies against Legionella species in dental personnel.

Authors:  F F Reinthaler; F Mascher; D Stünzner
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 6.116

10.  Microbiological evaluation of a range of disinfectant products to control mixed-species biofilm contamination in a laboratory model of a dental unit water system.

Authors:  J T Walker; D J Bradshaw; M R Fulford; P D Marsh
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.792

View more
  17 in total

1.  Comparison of the microbial load of incoming and distal outlet waters from dental unit water systems in Istanbul.

Authors:  Irfan Türetgen; Duygu Göksay; Aysin Cotuk
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Nanosilver as a disinfectant in dental unit waterlines: Assessment of the physicochemical transformations of the AgNPs.

Authors:  Alireza Gitipour; Souhail R Al-Abed; Stephen W Thiel; Kirk G Scheckel; Thabet Tolaymat
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 7.086

Review 3.  Monitoring dental-unit-water-line output water by current in-office test kits.

Authors:  Sham Lal; Sim K Singhrao; Matt Bricknell; Mark Pearce; L H Glyn Morton; Waqar Ahmed; St John Crean
Journal:  Curr Microbiol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  Breaking the Chain of Infection: Dental Unit Water Quality Control.

Authors:  Amrita Pawar; Sandeep Garg; Sonia Mehta; Rajat Dang
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-07-01

5.  A 10-year survey of compliance with recommended procedures for infection control by dentists in Beijing.

Authors:  Jing Su; Xiao-Hong Deng; Zheng Sun
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 2.607

6.  Purge- and intensive-purge decontamination of dental units contaminated with biofilm.

Authors:  Axel Kramer; Ojan Assadian; Danny Bachfeld; Georg Meyer
Journal:  GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip       Date:  2012-04-04

7.  An Evaluation of Two Systems for the Management of the Microbiological Quality of Water in Dental Unit Waterlines: Hygowater® and IGN Calbénium®.

Authors:  Damien Offner; Anne-Marie Musset
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Italian multicenter study on infection hazards during dental practice: control of environmental microbial contamination in public dental surgeries.

Authors:  Paolo Castiglia; Giorgio Liguori; Maria Teresa Montagna; Christian Napoli; Cesira Pasquarella; Margherita Bergomi; Leila Fabiani; Silvano Monarca; Stefano Petti
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-05-29       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Antibacterial Properties and Mechanism of Activity of a Novel Silver-Stabilized Hydrogen Peroxide.

Authors:  Nancy L Martin; Paul Bass; Steven N Liss
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Effect of different disinfection protocols on microbial and biofilm contamination of dental unit waterlines in community dental practices.

Authors:  Laura Dallolio; Amalia Scuderi; Maria S Rini; Sabrina Valente; Patrizia Farruggia; Maria A Bucci Sabattini; Gianandrea Pasquinelli; Anna Acacci; Greta Roncarati; Erica Leoni
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.