Comparison of Aerosolized Hydrogen Peroxide Fogging with a Conventional Disinfection Product for a Dental Surgery.

AIM AND
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to determine the efficacy of adding a 12% hydrogen peroxide dry hydrogen peroxide vapor fogger system as an additional layer of infection control in a dental surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total number of agar plates from the five locations were used during the treatment of the 22 patients (n = 440). During the treatment of each patient, four agar plates (n = 4) were used per location [location 1: X-ray, location 2: the dental arm, location 3: left side desk, location 4: under the foot of the dental chair, location 5: ri ght side desk and (n = 20 for the five locations per patient)]. The control agar plates were incubated after the treatment of the patient was completed period. The test agar plate groups were sprayed with a 70% isopropanol surface disinfectant, or received exposure to an automated 12% hydrogen peroxide fog, or a 70% isopropanol surface disinfectant spray immediately followed by exposure to the automated 12% hydrogen peroxide.
RESULTS: One-way ANOVA and Scheffé's method identified significant differences (p < 0.01). Between the control agar plates and the three disinfection methods used a significantly lower colony count was established for colonies recorded in the surgery assessed as a whole, the X-ray unit, and the ri ght side desk.
CONCLUSION: The disinfection of dental surgery r equires sufficient time as it not only includes the working surfaces but also various inanimate objects. Surface disinfectant spray followed by hydrogen peroxide decontamination has potential for dental surgery, as the colony-forming units have been r educed further compared to spray alone and even just fog alone for all the various areas of the dental surgery that was assessed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The infection control protocols with hydrogen peroxide vapor would ensure the maximum efficacy of the disinfection protocols.