Disinfection Of Dental Impressions Research Articles

Evolution and disinfection of dental impression materials: advances and challenges in dental biosafety

Introduction: Dentistry focused on oral health and used dental impressions as essential tools for designing prostheses and performing dental treatments. These impressions played a crucial role in providing accurate information about oral tissues and dental arches. However, obtaining impressions carried risks of contamination and transmission of infections for both patients and clinical staff. Adequate disinfection proved to be indispensable to ensure safety and quality in the dental environment. Development: Historically, impression materials evolved from the use of beeswax and plaster in the 17th century to the incorporation of elastomers in the 20th century. The latter, such as addition silicones and polyethers, were noted for their precision and dimensional stability. In addition, disinfection techniques varied according to the material, with disinfectants such as sodium hypochlorite, glutaraldehyde and quaternary ammonium compounds being used. These practices proved to be effective, but their implementation depended on technical knowledge, available resources and compliance with regulations. Conclusions: Disinfection of dental impressions was essential to prevent cross-infection and maintain treatment quality. Despite advances in materials and methods, challenges persisted in the uniform adoption of protocols. This analysis highlighted the need for continuing education, updating of guidelines, and promotion of standardized practices to improve biosafety and ensure success in dental care

Knowledge about methods of disinfection of dental impression among dentists from Ecuador post SARS-COV-2 pandemic

PurposeThe aim of this study is to evaluate the understanding of the management of methods and practices of disinfection of dental impressions applied by general dentists and specialists in oral rehabilitation, post SARS-COV-2 pandemic. IntroductionThe oral cavity has a favorable environment for the growth and multiplication of bacteria and viruses, serving as the gateway to viruses such as SARS CoV-2 virus. Given that patients may be hosts of this infectious disease, stricter biosecurity measures in dental offices and a better understanding of the disinfection processes of dental impressions should be considered in addition to avoiding cross-infections, which are very common in our work environment. Materials and methodsDescriptive, analytical, survey with the topic "Methods and practices of disinfection of dental impressions" that was composed of 14 questions based in OHPD (Oral Health Preventive Dentistry), n = 452 respondents who met the following inclusion criteria: general practice dentists from Ecuador who actively take dental impressions, specialists in oral rehabilitation with 5 years of experience, surveys with information of complete items, n = 270 professionals; n = 192 general dentists, dental hygienist and n = 78 oral rehabilitation specialists. Resultsn = 270 professionals evaluated, with a mean of p = 0.0. At 426 responses with a p value of <0.05, 30.4 % of responses indicated ignorance in the management of dental impressions, with a standard deviation of 2.744, with significant differences between professions (p = 0.035) and higher average knowledge of sample management within specialist dentists, (Chi p = 0.410 p > 0.05) ConclusionThe understanding of the management of dental impressions among general dentists and specialists in oral rehabilitation is limited.

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of UVC Radiation, Gaseous Ozone, and Liquid Chemicals Used for Disinfection of Silicone Dental Impression Materials.

Effective disinfection of dental impressions is an indispensable requirement for the safety of dental personnel and patients. The ideal method should be not only effective but also convenient, cheap, and environmentally friendly. This study aimed to reliably evaluate the efficacy of ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation, gaseous ozone, and commercial liquid chemicals used for silicone dental impressions disinfection. These methods were applied to two types of elastomeric impression materials: condensation silicones and addition silicones of various consistency (putty, medium, and light). The antimicrobial effectiveness against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans was evaluated in vitro by counting colony-forming units (CFU) on the surface of samples. The one-way ANOVA with a Tukey HSD test or the Kruskal–Wallis with a Dunn’s test was performed. The results obtained revealed the efficacy of the proposed methods for disinfection of both C-silicones and A-silicones in most of the studied groups. Only one material (Panasil initial contact Light) was not effectively disinfected after UVC irradiation or ozone application. In conclusion, the potential of each disinfection method should be evaluated separately for each material. Moreover, in further research, the possible influence of the proposed methods on the physical properties of the impression materials should be thoroughly investigated.

Current overview for chemical disinfection of dental impressions and models based on its criteria of usage: A microbiological study.

The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of two proven chemical disinfectants, glutaraldehyde and povidone iodine on dental impression and models by determining the reduction in the microbial load, and to compare changes in the physical properties of the models after adding the disinfectants. Irreversible hydrocolloid upper impressions of 90 patients were made and divided into 3 groups of 30 samples each; Group A--Control group; Impressions were run under clean tap water before pouring the model. Group B--2% Glutaraldehyde sprayed on the impression and left in situ for 10 min before pouring the model. Group C -10 ml of (5%) povidone iodine incorporated into the gypsum before pouring the model. Models from all three groups were subjected to microbiological assessment at three different time intervals, T0--24 h, T1--1 month and T2--3 months of storage by comparing the colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria and fungi. The compressive strength of 5 models from each group was also analyzed in Newton's/mm2. 2% Glutaraldehyde proved more effective than povidone iodine after 24 h of storage (T1), however at the end of 1 month (T1) and 3 months (T2) the Povidone group showed the maximum disinfection. Both the disinfectants caused a reduction in the compressive strength of the model with the povidone iodine group showing the maximum reduction. Although povidone iodine was the most effective disinfectant after 3 months, it showed a significant reduction in the compressive strength and caused discoloration of the model. 2% Glutaraldehyde proved to be the choice of disinfectant with minimal adverse effects.

Pulmonary Alterations Among Workers in a Dental Prosthesis Laboratory: Exploring High Dust Concentrations and Novel Findings of Bacterial Genera in the Workplace to Achieve Improved Control.

To evaluate the pulmonary alterations in workers from a dental prosthesis laboratory and explore dust and bacterial dissemination generated in the laboratory. Spirometry and computerized axial tomography were performed on 67 workers. Dust in workplace air was determined using the filtration-gravimetric method, and bacterial detection was explored using 16S rDNA gene sequencing. Pulmonary alterations were detected in 37% of the workers. Airborne dust concentrations were determined to be higher than the maximum permissible exposure limit, and bacterial detection analysis revealed 23 bacterial genera. The most frequently detected bacterial genus was Sphingomonas sp., which has been described as microbiota associated with disease of the oral cavity. The results of this study highlight the importance of the implementation of biosecurity measures, improvement of ventilation systems, and routine disinfection of dental impressions.

Influence of disinfecting agents on the spatial dimensions of alginate mass impressions

Disinfection of dental impressions is a compulsory procedure performed in order to break the chain of infection. Disinfectants used for this purpose are divided into two large groups. These are ready-to-use disinfectants applied directly over the surface of the impression in the form of a spray and concentrates, which are used to prepare a solution in which the impressions are immersed for a specific period of time. This study aims to evaluate the influence of disinfectants on spatial dimensions of alginate mass impressions. Ninety cubic impressions were prepared using metal matrixes with external dimensions of 28 x 28 mm. Each impression was measured in two planes. The impressions were divided into three equinumerous sets of 30: Group I was disinfected with Zeta 7 Spray (n = 30), Group II was disinfected with Zeta 7 Solution (n = 30), and the control Group III (n = 30). The dimensions of the samples were measured in two planes after 24 (T1) and 120 (T2) hours. The obtained data was analysed statistically. The dimensions of the samples after 24 and 120 hours in the first group were significantly different from those of the control group and the differences were statistically significant (p &lt;0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the second and the control group after 24 and 120 hours. Ready-to-use disinfectants influence the dimensional stability of alginate-mass impressions. The time between taking the impression and preparation of the cast should be considered while choosing the disinfecting agent.

Effectiveness of Alcohol and Aldehyde Spray Disinfectants on Dental Impressions.

BackgroundThe gold standard for disinfection of dental impressions is by immersion although spray techniques are also available. This study compared the effectiveness of alcohol and aldehyde spray disinfectants on analogue dental impressions in a hospital setting.Materials and MethodsImpressions were swabbed after removal from the mouth (pre-disinfection) and after spraying (post-disinfection) with either a non-aldehyde alcohol-based disinfectant, Bossklein (Silsden, W Yorks, BD20 0EF, UK) or a glutaraldehyde-based alcohol-free disinfectant, MD520 (Dürr Dental, 74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany). Swabs were transported to the microbiology laboratory in Amies medium and plated onto sheep blood agar within 2 hrs. Plates were incubated for 3 days at 37°C then at room temperature for 3 days. After incubation, all plates were examined for microbial growth.ResultsA total of 87 impressions were assessed (alginate = 41; poly-vinyl siloxane (PVS) = 31; polyether = 15). The counts were categorized into two groups: no growth or growth present. Post-disinfection contamination was present on six alginate and six PVS impressions but only one polyether impression (x2 = 1.27, P > 0.05, NSS). Analysis of post-disinfection growth according to impression and disinfectant found significantly more contaminated PVS impressions with the alcohol-based spray than with the aldehyde spray (x2 = 5.37, p < 0.05). Disinfection with the aldehyde-based spray resulted in only two contaminated impressions, both in alginate.ConclusionAlcohol-based spray disinfection of dental impressions may be less effective than aldehyde spray and full immersion of impressions is recommended. Careful wetting or soaking of all surfaces of impressions is very important when using a spray.

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

Background: Dental impressions are a common source for transmission of infection between dental clinics and dental labs. Dental impressions can be cross-contaminated by patient’s saliva and blood, which then cross-infect the dental casts poured from the impressions.Objective: To evaluate the current practices of disinfection of dental impressions and their protocols and to assess the knowledge of cross-infection control among dental technicians in Jordan.Method: Dental technicians (n=85) completed a self-administered questionnaire about their practices of disinfection for dental impressions.Results: The distribution of dental technicians was 63.8% fixed prosthodontics, 23.5% removable prosthodontics, 7.8% orthodontics, and 4.8% maxillofacial prosthodontics. The majority of the laboratories did not have instructions related to disinfection of impressions. About 50% of technicians were vaccinated against HBV. About 44.7%, and 42.9% of labs reported that they never disinfect alginate or silicon impressions, respectively. In addition, the majority of lab owners (53%) believed that the dentist should disinfect the impressions before shipping them to dental laboratories, while (45%) believed that disinfecting the impressions is the responsibility of the dental assistant. Moreover, about 38% of this study population reported not using gloves in their labs. In those labs were disinfection was used, 51% used spray disinfection whereas 32.6% used immersion disinfection. The cost of disinfectant was ranked as the most important factor (51.3% of the cases) for the dental technician to choose the disinfectant followed by its effectiveness.Conclusion: Dental technician practices in impression disinfection was not satisfactory, therefore, education programs about impression disinfection are needed.

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Chemical Disinfectants and Ultraviolet Disinfection on Dimensional Stability of the Polyvinyl Siloxane Impressions.

Context:Infection control is an important concept in the present day practice of dentistry. Disinfection of dental impressions is part of the daily routine in a dental clinics. After disinfection, it is important that impressions remain dimensionally stable.Aim:The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of chemical disinfectants and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection on the dimensional stability of the polyvinyl siloxane impressions.Objectives:The objective of the study is (1) To evaluate the effect of chemical disinfectant (2% glutaraldehyde and 1% sodium hypochlorite) and UV disinfectant on the dimensional stability of polyvinyl siloxane impression material. (2) Comparative evaluation of the dimensional discrepancy between the cast poured from the polyvinyl impressions material, that is subjected to chemical disinfectant and UV disinfectant to that of cast poured from impressions that were nondisinfected.Materials and Methods:A customized tray was fabricated to make impressions. Impressions were divided into four groups, 10 samples were disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde for 20 min, 10 samples were disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite for 20 min, 10 samples were disinfected with UV light for 20 min, and 10 samples were not subjected to disinfection which served as control group. All the samples were poured after 30 min in die stone. Measurements were recorded using traveling microscope of 0.001 accuracy. Statistical analysis used in this study was the one-way ANOVA test.Results:The result showed significant dimensional changes in samples disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde and 1% sodium hypochlorite, whereas samples disinfected with UV disinfectant unit showed no significant dimensional changes when compared with control group samples. Within the chemical groups, impressions disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite showed more discrepancy in the dimensions when compared to the 2% glutaraldehyde disinfected group.Conclusions:UV light disinfectant can be safely used to disinfect impressions as compared to chemical disinfectants in clinical prosthodontic procedures.

Disinfection of Dental Impressions and Effects of Disinfectants on Dental Impressions

The transfer of infectious microorganisms between patient, doctor and auxiliary staff is called ‘cross infection’. Due to the applications and materials used in prosthetic treatments, prosthodontists, nurses and dental technicians come up against several infections which can be transmitted from patients. The delivery of dental impressions, obtained from patients during prosthetic applications, without disinfection leads to cross contamination between clinic and dental laboratory. To prevent contamination, disinfection of dental impressions is recommended. However, disinfection methods and disinfectants can affect the characteristics of dental impression materials. The aim of this paper is to review the disinfection of dental impressions and the effects of disinfectants on dental impressions in the light of previous studies.

Comportamentos na desinfeção das impressões dentárias por médicos dentistas e técnicos de prótese de Viseu

AimsTo analyse attitudes, knowledge and education of Dentists and Dental Technicians regarding the disinfection of dental impressions, and to evaluate communication in this context. MethodsThis research covered dentists (n=64) and dental laboratories (n=5) from Viseu, to whom it was distributed a questionnaire to evaluate the behaviour and attitudes on dental impressions disinfection. ResultsAlginate is the material used by all (100%) of the respondents, and prosthodontics is the area with the highest use of this impression material. 60.3% of dentists state that they always disinfect impression materials that are sent to the laboratory. However, 80.0% of the dental laboratories do not receive any notification about it. Chemical disinfection is performed with alcohols, mainly in the form of spray, with effectiveness being the determining factor when selecting the disinfection material. The majority of dentists (65.6%) declared that they do not inform the dental laboratory about the biomaterial's state of disinfection. 80.0% of dental laboratories admitted that they do not rely on the disinfection performed by dentists. ConclusionsThere's a need for additional educational measures regarding infection control practices and improved communication between dentists and dental technicians. Regarding communication and confidence, the results are lower than expected and even contradictory to international literature.

Effectiveness of Low-flow High-ozone Concentration Disinfection of Dental Impressions: A Comparative Study to Immersion Disinfection

Aims: To examine the effectiveness of low -flow high-ozone concentration disinfection of dental impressions, by means of an automated prototype device. Methodology: Disc shaped dental addition -cured silicone was inoculatedwithKlebsiella pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, 10 mm discs were removed and ozone disinfected for different time intervals, immersion disinfected or served as controls. Disinfection success w as examined by using the viable plate count method, while the statistical analysis was conducted via one way -ANOVA (p < 0.05). Results: Significant eradication was observed for selected Gram (+) and Gram (-) Original ResearchArticle

Photodynamic Disinfection of Dental Impressions as a New Competitive Method to the Conventional Cleansing Procedures

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of Photodynamic method as a disinfection procedure to the Prosthetic Dentistry. The conventional cleansing procedures were applied in comparison. Second generation photosensitizers from the group of phthalocyanines were synthesized and applied for photodynamic studies of inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms associated with dental impressions. The results showed that Photodynamic disinfection (PDD) can be successfully applied for the samples of dental impressions contaminated experimentally and especially the samples of humans origins. PDD as a new procedure was more efficient and competitive to the conventional disinfections of impressions.

Current status of disinfection of dental impressions in Indian dental colleges: a cause of concern

Dentistry is predominantly a field of surgery, involving exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials and therefore requires a high standard of infection control and safety practice in controlling cross-contamination and occupational exposures to blood- and saliva-borne diseases. A questionnaire survey was conducted in 60 dental colleges throughout India to establish routine methods of treating impressions of the oral cavity for disinfection. An email describing the purpose of the study along with a short questionnaire was sent to one of the teaching faculty of concerned departments of the colleges. Questions were asked regarding availability of materials required to disinfect the impressions, the preferred method to treat the impression, and whether postgraduate courses were offered by the department. The routine method of treating the impression reported by 75.9% of the respondents was washing under running water, while 24.1% of the respondents reported that impressions were treated by chemical disinfectants. Strict infection control measures are necessary to ensure the health and safety of dental workers and patients. The present study showed that there is a lack of commitment to high standards of infection control practices in dental colleges in India.

Evaluation of knowledge about disinfection of dental impressions in several dental schools

Objetivo: Avaliar conhecimento de alunos e professores em cinco instituicoes de ensino, considerando necessidade e tecnicas de desinfeccao de moldes. Material e metodo: Os dados foram colhidos por meio de questionarios compostos de questoes discursivas e de multipla escolha, respondidos por 201 alunos e 27 professores. Resultados: A primeira parte do questionario revelou que 66,17% dos alunos e 81,48% dos professores realizam rotineiramente desinfeccao. Entre esses professores, 48,15% afirmaram ter recebido treinamento sobre o tema e 59,26% responderam que e enfatizado nas escolas que lecionam. As solucoes desinfetantes relatadas como mais eficazes pelos participantes foram: glutaraldeido 2%, hipoclorito de sodio 1% e clorexidina. Observou-se que a maioria dos alunos apresentava dificuldades em responder as questoes relativas a descricao da tecnica de desinfeccao, para diferentes materiais de moldagem. Constatou-se que as respostas de docentes e discentes quando comparadas nao apresentavam padronizacao de conhecimento sobre este assunto. No geral, professores de mesma instituicao demonstraram pensamentos divergentes sobre questoes similares. Em relacao a segunda parte do questionario, mesmo apresentando alternativas, o indice de questoes nao respondidas foi alto. Conclusao: Apesar de estarem conscientes da necessidade de desinfeccao, os alunos apresentaram dificuldades para executar o procedimento. Nao foi observada padronizacao de ideias entre professores de mesma instituicao, havendo assim a necessidade de elaboracao de protocolo e torna-lo mais claro e acessivel aos alunos. Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards

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. 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. Anonymous postal questionnaire. 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. 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. Compliance with good practice is less than ideal and education in impression disinfection for both dentists and dental technicians is required to address this.

Commentary on: Disinfection of dental impressions – compliance to accepted standards

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.

Disinfection of dental impressions in dental colleges in India: a cause of concern

Previous reports confirmed that all members of the dental profession are at a risk at least three times greater than the general population of contacting infection and developing the carrier state.2 Hepatitis B poses a high risk to dental staff with it’s relatively low infective dose and stability outside body for lengthy periods.3,4,5 It is estimated that, India with a population of nearly one billion, harbors no less than 30 million chronic carriers of the hepatitis B virus (HBV).2 Also, India is now among the leading countries for numbers of cases of AIDS; if the situation remains unchanged, the number of such cases could reach 50 million by 2025.2 Tuberculosis remains another leading cause of death in India, claiming nearly 400,000 fatalities annually.2 Casts from contaminated dental impressions are known to carry a variety of pathogens and disinfection guidelines, such as those from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, caution that all patients be considered potentially infectious.2,6,7,8,9,10 Therefore, proper disinfection of contaminated dental impressions & other dental items leaving the immediate chair-side area remains the best approach to preventing the spread of infections in dentistry.1 Among the currently recommended, disinfectants for this purpose are formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, chlorine compounds, iodophores & phenolics in adequate concentrations.11,12,13

Disinfection of dental impressions in dental colleges in India: a cause of concern

Disinfection of dental impressions in dental colleges in India: a cause of concern

Disinfection of dental impressions

口腔医疗过程中由于受到患者唾液、血液的污染,口腔印模表面常含有多种病原微生物,尤其是肝炎病毒、单纯疱疹病毒、人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)、结核杆菌等,若未经特殊的消毒处理立即灌注模型,则易造成患者以及医师、技师人员之间的医源性交叉感染。