Literature DB >> 21169966

Disinfection of dental impressions - compliance to accepted standards.

N Almortadi1, R G Chadwick.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The responsibility of ensuring impressions have been cleaned and disinfected before dispatch to the dental laboratory lies solely with the dentist. Uncertainty of impression disinfection risks both the health of the receiving dental technician and potential repeat disinfection of an already disinfected impression with detrimental consequences for its dimensions.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain, from the perspectives of dentists and dental technicians, current impression decontamination and disinfection practices with, in the case of the technicians, an estimate of the relative prevalence of contaminated voids within apparently disinfected impressions.
DESIGN: Anonymous postal questionnaire.
METHOD: Dentist (n = 200) and dental technician (n = 200) potential participants, selected at random from the registers held by the General Dental Council, were invited to complete an anonymous postal questionnaire that sought to establish current practices and perceived effectiveness of impression disinfection.
RESULTS: Questionnaire return rates of 42.1% and 31.2% were recorded for dentists and dental technicians respectively. A wide range of solutions, at different dilutions of the same product, was used by the dentists to disinfect dental impressions. 37.2% rinsed the impressions with water, and 2.6% always brushed debris away, before disinfection. 24.7% of dentists did not inform the laboratory of disinfection. Irrespective of the disinfection status of the received impressions, 50% of the responding dental technicians disinfected all impressions. 95% of them had received blood-contaminated impressions. 15% had encountered blood-filled voids upon trimming back the peripheries of impressions. 64.7% were confident that the impressions received by them had been disinfected by the dentists.
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with good practice is less than ideal and education in impression disinfection for both dentists and dental technicians is required to address this.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21169966     DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.1134

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br Dent J        ISSN: 0007-0610            Impact factor:   1.626


  5 in total

1.  Effect of alginate chemical disinfection on bacterial count over gypsum cast.

Authors:  Satheesh B Haralur; Omir S Al-Dowah; Naif S Gana; Abdullah Al-Hytham
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 2.  Compliance with infection prevention and control in oral health-care facilities: a global perspective.

Authors:  Jeanné Oosthuysen; Elsa Potgieter; Annabel Fossey
Journal:  Int Dent J       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 2.607

3.  Communication methods and production techniques in fixed prosthesis fabrication: a UK based survey. Part 2: production techniques.

Authors:  J Berry; M Nesbit; S Saberi; H Petridis
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  Disinfection of dental impressions: knowledge and practice among dental technicians.

Authors:  Noor Al Mortadi; Aceil Al-Khatib; Karem H Alzoubi; Omar F Khabour
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2019-05-07

5.  Effectiveness of Alcohol and Aldehyde Spray Disinfectants on Dental Impressions.

Authors:  Ayesha Al Shikh; Alexander Milosevic
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2020-02-13
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.