OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic infections are serious problems in dental offices. Impression tray adhesives are delivered in glass containers with a fixed brush attached inside the cap. Using the brush for application of the impression tray adhesive on a contaminated impression tray or prostheses, pathogen transmission by replacing the cap with the brush is possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacterial strains (patient strains and in vitro strains) were supervaccinated on Columbia agar. The bacterial solution was diluted with TSB and aerobically grown, and starting concentration was 1 × 10(7) cfu/ml. The stock solution was placed on Columbia agar. Alginate, polyether, and silicon impression tray adhesives were applied to the center of the particular blood agar plates and incubated for 48 h. The expansion of the inhibition zone assays were measured using a microscope. RESULTS: Twenty-one different bacterial strains were selected in the saliva samples of 20 patients. The growth inhibition for alginate impression tray adhesive was 1.1 % (±0.3) of the patient strains. The overgrowth of polyether impression tray adhesive was 30.6 % (±9.3) and for silicon impression tray adhesive 11.8 % (±5.0). In in vitro strains, alginate impression tray adhesive performed an inhibition of 0.7 % (±0.3). The overgrowth of polyether impression tray adhesive was 7.0 % (±1.6) and for silicon impression tray adhesive was 6.5 % (±1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Using the fixed brush for application of the impression tray adhesive on multiple patients, a cross-contamination cannot be ruled out. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: An application of the impression tray adhesive with a pipette and a single-use brush would eliminate the contamination.
OBJECTIVES:Iatrogenic infections are serious problems in dental offices. Impression tray adhesives are delivered in glass containers with a fixed brush attached inside the cap. Using the brush for application of the impression tray adhesive on a contaminated impression tray or prostheses, pathogen transmission by replacing the cap with the brush is possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Bacterial strains (patient strains and in vitro strains) were supervaccinated on Columbia agar. The bacterial solution was diluted with TSB and aerobically grown, and starting concentration was 1 × 10(7) cfu/ml. The stock solution was placed on Columbia agar. Alginate, polyether, and silicon impression tray adhesives were applied to the center of the particular blood agar plates and incubated for 48 h. The expansion of the inhibition zone assays were measured using a microscope. RESULTS: Twenty-one different bacterial strains were selected in the saliva samples of 20 patients. The growth inhibition for alginate impression tray adhesive was 1.1 % (±0.3) of the patient strains. The overgrowth of polyether impression tray adhesive was 30.6 % (±9.3) and for silicon impression tray adhesive 11.8 % (±5.0). In in vitro strains, alginate impression tray adhesive performed an inhibition of 0.7 % (±0.3). The overgrowth of polyether impression tray adhesive was 7.0 % (±1.6) and for silicon impression tray adhesive was 6.5 % (±1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Using the fixed brush for application of the impression tray adhesive on multiple patients, a cross-contamination cannot be ruled out. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: An application of the impression tray adhesive with a pipette and a single-use brush would eliminate the contamination.
Authors: D Rozkiewicz; T Daniluk; M L Zaremba; D Cylwik-Rokicka; E Luczaj-Cepowicz; R Milewska; G Marczuk-Kolada; W Stokowska Journal: Adv Med Sci Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.287
Authors: William G Kohn; Jennifer A Harte; Dolores M Malvitz; Amy S Collins; Jennifer L Cleveland; Kathy J Eklund Journal: J Am Dent Assoc Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.634