BACKGROUND: Magnification loupes are not disposable and must be cleaned and disinfected between each patient. In this pilot study, the authors determined the efficacy of infection-control procedures used by dental students between patients. METHODS: Visibly clean loupes owned and used by 25 dental students were swabbed for bacteria using a standard microbiology method at baseline and then cleaned with surface disinfectant before they were returned. The students then used and disinfected their loupes for 5 days as they treated patients, after which time the loupes were retrieved and swabbed again. After the samples had been cultured, the numbers of aerobic and anaerobic colony-forming units (CFUs) were enumerated. The authors report the contamination levels at baseline, after cleaning, and after being used for 5 days. RESULTS: At baseline, the number of CFUs ranged from 0 through more than 100. When used according to the manufacturers' instructions, the disinfectant reduced the count to no more than 2 CFUs. After the loupes were used for 5 days, 20% of loupes were highly contaminated (> 100 CFUs), 20% were moderately contaminated (20-100 CFUs), and 60% had less than 20 CFUs. Students who performed a restoration on day 5 were 12 times more likely (P < .01) to have loupes contaminated with aerobic bacteria than those who had not performed a restoration on day 5. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended prophylaxis and disinfection protocol worked well when used correctly, but it was likely that the protocol often was not followed properly or consistently. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Visibly clean loupes may be a source of cross-contamination.
BACKGROUND: Magnification loupes are not disposable and must be cleaned and disinfected between each patient. In this pilot study, the authors determined the efficacy of infection-control procedures used by dental students between patients. METHODS: Visibly clean loupes owned and used by 25 dental students were swabbed for bacteria using a standard microbiology method at baseline and then cleaned with surface disinfectant before they were returned. The students then used and disinfected their loupes for 5 days as they treated patients, after which time the loupes were retrieved and swabbed again. After the samples had been cultured, the numbers of aerobic and anaerobic colony-forming units (CFUs) were enumerated. The authors report the contamination levels at baseline, after cleaning, and after being used for 5 days. RESULTS: At baseline, the number of CFUs ranged from 0 through more than 100. When used according to the manufacturers' instructions, the disinfectant reduced the count to no more than 2 CFUs. After the loupes were used for 5 days, 20% of loupes were highly contaminated (> 100 CFUs), 20% were moderately contaminated (20-100 CFUs), and 60% had less than 20 CFUs. Students who performed a restoration on day 5 were 12 times more likely (P < .01) to have loupes contaminated with aerobic bacteria than those who had not performed a restoration on day 5. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended prophylaxis and disinfection protocol worked well when used correctly, but it was likely that the protocol often was not followed properly or consistently. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Visibly clean loupes may be a source of cross-contamination.