ArticlePDF Available

Decontamination Methods Used for Dental Burs – A Comparative Study

Authors:

Abstract

Aims and objectives: Infection control and modes of sterilizations are the key factors to avoid cross transmission of infection in the field of dentistry. Transmission of disease or infection is noted with improper sterilization of reused instruments. Dental burs are the most important tool in any endodontic or conservative procedures of teeth involving tooth contouring, restorative filling procedures and endodontic procedures. Hence, the present study is undertaken to assess the efficacy of different methods of sterilization or decontamination which are routinely used in dental clinics. Materials and methods: For the present study 96 round diamond burs were selected and divided into 6 groups. These burs were used for the access cavity preparation to get contamination and subjected for bacteriological culture. After getting base line date burs were subjected to manual scrubbing, hot air oven, glass bead sterilizer, ultrasonic cleaner and autoclave to get post decontamination data. Results: The study revealed that mean colony forming units/ml of Streptococcus mutans decreased maximum for autoclave with 80% reduction, for Lactobacilli 76% reduction and for Candida albicans maximum reduction seen for glass bead sterilizer with 74%. Conclusion: Findings of our study revealed that none of the methods used were found to be absolutely efficacious in the decontamination of dental burs. However, among the experimental groups used in the present study, autoclave was found to be the relatively best method.
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2014 Jun, Vol-8(6): ZC39-ZC41 3939
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9314.4488 Original Article
Decontamination Methods Used for Dental
Burs – A Comparative Study
Keywords: Autoclave, Candida albicans, Diamond burs, Glass bead sterilizer,
Hot air oven, Lactobacilli, Streptococcus mutans, Ultrasonic cleaner
SANGAMESHWAR SAJJANSHETTY1, DEEPA HUGAR 2, SANTOSH HUGAR3, SHASHI RANJAN4, MEGHA KADANI5
INTRODUCTION
Infection control is a major issue in medicine and dentistry because
of concern over communicable diseases transmitted in health care
settings. Both dental personnel and patients are always at risk of
communicating diseases during treatment [1]. It is a century old
observation that disease may spread between patients and staff
and amongst patients through a variety of channels. The use of
effective infection control procedures in the dental office will prevent
cross contamination that may extend to dentist, dental staff, dental
technician and patients [1,2].
Infection control procedure in the office are divided into two major
categories depending on the how the procedure interfere with
development of disease. They either interferes with spread of
disease agent by reducing the contamination or they remove the
disease agent after contamination has occurred [3].
Dental burs are used in clinical dentistry for various procedures
some of which includes caries excavation, access cavity preparation
and crown reduction. During these procedures burs may become
heavily contaminated with necrotic tissue, saliva, blood and potential
pathogens and identified as potential vehicle for cross infection. In
routine dental practice, adequate disinfection and sterilization has
to be focused upon to control cross transmission of infection [4].
The most commonly used methods of sterilization includes soaking
of burs in commercially available disinfectors followed by manual
cleaning or, using ultrasonic bath or, autoclaving [5].
Burs are unique by virtue of their complex architecture which
makes pre-cleaning and subsequent sterilization difficult to achieve.
Inadequate sterilization causes cross infection among the patient
and transmission of disease between the patient and dental
personnel [6,7].
Thus, the present study was conducted to evaluate and compare
the efficiency of commonly available different decontamination
methods for dental burs.
Dentistry Section
METHODOLOGY
The present invivo study was carried out in the Department of
Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Bapuji Dental College and
Hospital Davangere, India. Prior to the conduction of study ethical
approval was done, then informed consent from the parents /
guardians of the pediatric patients was obtained after thoroughly
explaining them about the procedure details and treatment
outcomes. The study is a single blinded study were pediatric
patients were randomly selected from the outpatient department
in the college.
Ninety six round diamond burs (no.18) were selected for the study.
After that these burs were randomly assigned in six groups of 16
each.
Group I: Uncontaminated burs.
Group II: Contaminated burs subjected to manual scrubbing.
Group III: Contaminated burs subjected to hot air oven.
Group IV: Contaminated burs subjected to glass bead sterilization.
Group V: Contaminated burs subjected to ultrasonic cleaner.
Group VI: Contaminated burs subjected to autoclave.
All the experimental group burs were used for the access cavity
preparation in primary teeth. After that burs were removed from
the airotor hand piece with sterile tweezer. These contaminated
burs were carried in transport medium to the Department of Oral
Pathology, and 0.05 ml was taken with the help of inoculating
loop and streaked on Mitis Salivaries agar for selective culturing of
Streptococcus mutans, on Rogosa SL agar for selective culturing
of Lactobacilli and on Sabourauds with chloramphenicol agar for
Candida albicans. These plates were incubated for 48 hrs at 37oC
in a standardized procedure.
Following incubation numbers of Colony Forming Units (CFU’S) of
mutans Streptococci, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans at the end
of two days were counted with colony counting machine.
ABSTRACT
Aims and Objectives: Infection control and modes of sterilizations
are the key factors to avoid cross transmission of infection in the
field of dentistry. Transmission of disease or infection is noted
with improper sterilization of reused instruments. Dental burs
are the most important tool in any endodontic or conservative
procedures of teeth involving tooth contouring, restorative filling
procedures and endodontic procedures. Hence, the present
study is undertaken to assess the efficacy of different methods
of sterilization or decontamination which are routinely used in
dental clinics.
Materials and Methods: For the present study 96 round diamond
burs were selected and divided into 6 groups. These burs were
used for the access cavity preparation to get contamination and
subjected for bacteriological culture. After getting base line date
burs were subjected to manual scrubbing, hot air oven, glass
bead sterilizer, ultrasonic cleaner and autoclave to get post
decontamination data.
Results: The study revealed that mean colony forming units/ml
of Streptococcus mutans decreased maximum for autoclave with
80% reduction, for Lactobacilli 76% reduction and for Candida
albicans maximum reduction seen for glass bead sterilizer with
74%.
Conclusion: Findings of our study revealed that none of the
methods used were found to be absolutely efficacious in the
decontamination of dental burs. However, among the experimental
groups used in the present study, autoclave was found to be the
relatively best method.
Sangameshwar Sajjanshetty et al., Decontamination Methods Used for Dental Burs-A Comparative Study www.jcdr.net
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2014 Jun, Vol-8(6): ZC39-ZC41
4040
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Results were expressed as Mean ± Standard deviation (SD), range
values and number of percentages. Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was used
for multiple group comparisons followed by Wilcoxon’s Rank Sum
test (Mann-Whitney test) for group wise comparisons of reduction
in colony forming units/ml.
RESULTS
Maximum reduction of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilli seen
with Autoclave followed by Glass bead, Hot air oven, Ultrasonic,
Manual scrubbing and for 3 glass bead was found to be effective.
When intergroup comparison done for Streptococcus mutans Gr
(Group) II to Gr III, Gr IV, Gr V, Gr VI ; Gr III to Gr VI; Gr IV to Gr VI; Gr
V to Gr VI was found to be statistically significant.
When intergroup comparison done for Lactobacilli Gr II to Gr IV; Gr
II to Gr V; Gr III to Gr IV; Gr III to Gr V; Gr IV to Gr VI ; Gr IV to Gr V
was found to be statistically significant.
When intergroup comparison done for Candida albicans Gr II to Gr
III, Gr IV, Gr V, Gr VI; Gr III to Gr IV, Gr V, Gr VI; Gr IV to Gr V, Gr VI
was found to be p<0.01 and statistically significant [Table/Fig-1-2].
DISCUSSION
Preservation of dental arch and its function is the main motive behind
pediatric dentistry. Retention of the primary teeth is needed until they
are naturally exfoliated. There are several advantages of preserving
the natural primary teeth. Primary teeth help in preserving the arch
length, play an important role in mastication, esthetics, speech and
act as space maintainers for permanent teeth and have psychological
advantage of conserving rather than extracting the tooth [8, 9].
Most of the pathologies of pulp and periapical tissues of teeth
are directly or indirectly related to the microorganisms. Therefore,
to effectively diagnose and treat endodontic infection, one should
have the knowledge of bacteria associated with endodontic
pathology [10].
However, there are few studies concerning root canal microbiota
of primary teeth. Marsh and Largent in one study found that
Streptococci mutans were found 30% to 52% of the cases [11,
12] and Candida albicans were found in 21% of infected root
canals [10, 13].
Currently, numerous articles address the transmission of blood
and tissue borne pathogens from one patient to another via
contaminated devices. Many studies look at the bacterial and viral
contamination of dental and medical instrumentation and the safety
of sterilizing and reusing these instruments. There have also been
concerns over the possible transmission of prions by contaminated
surgical instruments [14].
Some studies have also shown that reuse of instruments is common
and that cleaning of these instruments may not always be effective.
For example Lowe, Burke et al., conducted a survey of general
dentists in Scotland and found that 93% of those who answered the
survey reused matrix bands on multiple patients in their practices.
Although 99% of respondents used a steam autoclave to sterilize
Decontamination methods
Group 1: Control
Sixteen uncontaminated burs were used as control group.
Group 2: Manual Scrubbing
The effectiveness of manual scrubbing was tested using bur brush.
Sixteen contaminated burs were subjected to 40 strokes of bur
brush by holding the bur with a sterile tweezer and brushing from
the shank to the working end. This procedure was done under
running water, after completion of procedure burs were placed in
screw- cap tube containing transport medium amies.
Group 3: Hot Air Oven
Sixteen contaminated burs after cleaning under running tap water
with detergent were kept in a sterile bur stand and placed in hot air
oven for 60 minutes at 160oC. After complete sterilization burs were
recovered and placed in transport medium amies.
Group 4: Glass Bead Sterlizer
Sixteen contaminated burs after cleaning under running tap water
using detergent were submerged in a glass bead sterilizer at a
distance of 2 mm from the wall of the sterilizer for 15 sec at 230oC
with a sterile tweezer. The glass bead sterilizer was controlled by
thermostat and the light indicated the attainment of the required
temperature.
Group 5: Ultrasonic
After cleaning under running tap water with detergent, 16
contaminated burs were placed in ultrasonic cleaner containing
solution which was non ammoniated, non ionic and phosphate free.
After that burs were removed aseptically and placed in transport
medium amies. Effectiveness of ultrasonic bath was confirmed by
aluminum foil test.
Group 6: Autoclave
After cleaning under running tap water with detergent, 16
contaminated burs were cleaned under running tap water and
placed in sterile bur stand and autoclaved for 16 minutes at 121oC
under 16 psi. Sterilization monitoring of autoclave was done with
color changeable chemical tape. After decontamination method,
collected test samples were carried for the microbiological
processing to obtain the specific culture.
[Table/Fig-1]: Showing mean and Standard deviation of the Colony Forming Units/ml of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacilli and Candida albicans,
before and after decontamination
[Table/Fig-2]: Showing percentage of reduction of microorganism
among experimental group
Before Decontamination After Decontamination
Group Streptococcus
mutans
Lactobacilli Candida albicans Streptococcus
mutans
Lactobacilli Candida albicans
Control 0.5 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.2 0.2 ± 0.2
Manual scrubbing 17.9 ± 0.7 11.4 ± 1.1 6.3 ± 0.8 7.0 ± 0.8 5.7 ± 0.5 4.6 ± 1.0
Hot air oven 17.4 ± 1.1 9.8 ± 0.9 6.1 ± 1.0 4.8 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 0.5 1.8 ± 0.5
Glass bead 18.0 ± 0.8 12.1 ± 1.0 6.5 ± 0.7 4.9 ± 0.5 3.3 ± 0.8 1.3 ± 0.5
Ultrasonic 18.2 ± 1.0 12.1 ± 1.1 6.3 ± 0.8 5.5 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.5 3.5 ± 0.5
Autoclave 17.9 ± 0.9 8.8 ± 1.2 4.3 ± 0.7 3.7 ± 0.5 2.1 ± 0.4 0.9 ± 0.3
Before Decontamination
Group Streptococcus
mutans
Lactobacilli Candida
albicans
Manual scrubbing 61% 50% 27%
Hot air oven 72% 65% 69%
Glass bead 73% 74% 80%
Ultrasonic 69% 61% 44%
Autoclave 80% 76% 79%
www.jcdr.net Sangameshwar Sajjanshetty et al., Decontamination Methods Used for Dental Burs-A Comparative Study
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2014 Jun, Vol-8(6): ZC39-ZC41 4141
REFERENCES
[1] Bentley EM. The value of ultrasonic cleaner in dental practice. Br Dent J. 1994;
177: 53-56.
[2] Crawford JJ, Whitacre RJ, Middaugh DG. Current status of sterilization
instruments, devices and method for the dental office. JADA. 1981;102:
683-9.
[3] Engelhardt JP, Ludwig Grun, Hans Jurgen Dahl. Factors affecting sterilization in
glass bead sterilizers. J Endodo. 1984; 10(10):465-470.
[4] Morrison, Archie, and Susan Conrod. “Dental burs and endodontic files: are
routine sterilization procedures effective?.” Journal of the Canadian Dental
Association.2009;75(1).
[5] Sheriteh, Zahra, Tasnim Hassan, Martyn Sherriff, and Martin Cobourne.
“Decontamination procedures for tungsten carbide debonding burs: a cross
sectional survey of hospital based orthodontic departments.” Journal of
orthodontics.2010; 37(3):174-80.
[6] Ferrari PHP, Cai S, Bombana AC. Effect of endodontic procedures on
enterococci, enteric bacteria and yeast in primary endodontic infections.
International Endodontic Journal. 2005;38: 372-80.
[7] Garg N, Garg A. Textbook of Endodontics. 1ed. New Delhi. Jaypee. 2007;
432-40.
[8] Garg N, Garg A. Textbook of Endodontics. 1ed. New Delhi. Jaypee. 2007; 50-5.
[9] Hogg NJV, Morrison AD. Resterilization of instruments used in hospital based
oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005; 71(3):179-82.
[10] Harkness N, Davies EH. Cleaning of dental diamond burs. Br Dent J.
1983;154:42-5.
[11] LAB Silva, et al. Bacterial profile in primary teeth with necrotic pulp and periapical
lesions. Braz Dent J. 2006; 17(2): 144-48.
[12] Miller CH. Cleaning, sterilization and disinfection: Basics of microbial killing for
infection control. JADA. 1993;124: 48-56.
[13] Miller CH, Chung Ming Tan, James C, Setcos. Cleaning of dental instrument:
Measuring the effectiveness of an instrument washer/disinfector. Am J Dent.
2000;13: 39-43.
[14] Neugeboren N, Nisengard RJ, Beutner EH, Ferguson GW. Control of cross
contamination. JADA. 1972;85: 1232-37.
[15] Patterson CJW, Mclundie AC, Mackay AM. The effect of ultrasonic cleaning and
autoclaving on tungsten carbide burs. Br Dent J. 1988;164:113-15.
[16] Pazelli LC, Campos de Freitas A, Ito IY, De souza Gugelmin MCN, Medeiros
AS, Filho PN. Prevalence of microorganisms in root canal of human deciduous
teeth with necrotic pulp and chronic periapical lesion. Pediatr Dent. 2003;
17(4):1-7.
[17] Sher MR, Web S. Council on dental materials, Instruments, and equipment.
Current status of sterilization instruments, devices and methods for the dental
office. JADA. 1981; 102: 683-89.
[18] Stock C, Walker R, Gulabivala K. Endodontics.3ed. Edinburgh. Mosby. 2004.
307-12.
[19] Schutt RW,Starsiak WJ. Glass bead sterilization of surgical dental burs. Int J
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990; 19:250-1.
[20] Whitworth CL, Martine MV, Gallagher M, Worthington HV. A comparison of
decontamination methods used for dental burs. Br Dent J. 2004;197(10):
635-40.
[21] Wilson AA. Council on dental materials, Instruments, and equipment,
Council on dental practice and Council o dental therapist. Infection control
recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. JADA. 1988;
116: 241-48.
instruments, they used a variety of pre sterilization cleaning methods,
ranging from a pre-soak only to a combination pre-soak, ultrasonic
cleaning and hand scrubbing [14].
Dental burs are identified as potential vehicle for cross infection
in dental orifice due to their contact with saliva, blood, teeth and
bone [3,6,15]. While most of the dental instruments are effectively
cleaned after use, the diamond bur is often neglected and only
brushed or immersed in a mild disinfectant prior to reuse [16].
Manual scrubbing of dental bur is simple and cheap but it may not
be effective, it also takes time for instruments to be cleaned properly
and it may not be possible in busy practice and also aerosols of
pathogenic microorganisms may be produced by hand cleaning
with contamination of the sink [17,18].
Council on dental materials, instruments and equipments also
stated the dry heat oven is the preferred method for sterilization
of dental burs but produce little rusting or dulling of instruments,
also they are inexpensive to purchase but have substantially longer
processing time than an autoclave [19].
Bead sterilizers have been commonly used for the fast chair side
sterilization of endodontic instruments, because it can easily be placed
in the operatory, burs could be sterilized immediately before, during
and after the surgical procedures but precleaning of instruments is
recommended [3, 20]. It is found that glass bead sterilization is most
effective method of destroying fungal contaminants as and when
compared to autoclave and other groups.
Ultrasonic cleaning has been shown to be effective in removing
dried blood and saliva from the dental instruments and remains
an important system that enhances dental personnel safety during
instrument handeling [21].
Under proper conditions steam under pressure (Autoclave) can
destroy all microorganisms including bacterial spores and it is found
to be relatively the best method to decontaminate dental burs, yet
it has some limitations like it increases the fracture susceptibility,
decreases the cutting efficiency and life span of burs, which all
should be weighed against its benefits.
CONCLUSION
Findings of our study revealed that none of the methods used were
found to be absolutely efficacious in the decontamination of dental
burs. However, among the experimental groups used in the present
study, autoclave was found to be the relatively best method to
decontaminate burs.
Date of Submission: Mar 18, 2014
Date of Peer Review: Apr 17, 2014
Date of Acceptance: May 15, 2014
Date of Online Ahead of Print: May 28, 2014
Date of Publishing: Jun 20, 2014
PARTICULARS OF CONTRIBUTORS:
1. Reader, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, H.K.E.S’s S.N.D.C, Gulbarga, India.
2. Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, H.K.E.S’s S.N.D.C, Gulbarga, India.
3. Reader, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Bharatiya Vidyapeetha, Sangli, India.
4. Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Buddha Dental College, Patna, India.
5. Postraduate Student, Department of Oral And Maxillofacial Pathology, H.K.E.S’s S.N.D.C, Gulbarga, India.
NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL ID OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Dr. Sangameshwar Sajjanshetty,
Plot No 19, Vasant Nagar, M.S.K. Mill Road, Gulbarga-585103, India.
Phone: +919535313292, E-mail: sajjanshettysangamesh@yahoo.com
FINANCIAL OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS: None.
... The rotary diamond burs are categorized according to the medical device directive (93/42/ECC). It is well-documented that dental burs can become highly contaminated with blood saliva and tooth debris during treatment, the pathogen may adhere to the different parts of the bur [2]. ...
... The risk of cross-contamination during treatment is that communicable diseases may spread between the patients and dentists or among the patients themselves. So, the use of effective infection control methods may prevent the transmission of cross-contamination [2,3]. ...
... They adhere to composite restorative materials and metals, including dental amalgam, gold, and non-precious alloys. They are the organisms predominantly found in the gingival sulcus [2,8]. ...
... The following sterilization/disinfection methods were compared for their efficacy in different articles-manual scrubbing, hot air oven, glass bead sterilization, ultrasonic cleaner, autoclave, chemiclave and various chemical disinfectants. [9][10][11] From almost all the articles, it is evident that steam sterilization (autoclaving) continues to be more efficacious than other methods evaluated, followed closely by dry heat sterilization. The reason for this mainly is that moist heat has better penetrative potential as compared to dry heat. ...
... This strongly indicates that whenever possible, burs should be disposed after a single use. [9][10][11] It is important to note that presoaking of burs in soapy water/disinfectant is crucial to loosen the debris that is adhering on the burs. Ultrasonic systems can also be used for enhanced debridement. ...
... The following sterilization/disinfection methods were compared for their efficacy in different articles-manual scrubbing, hot air oven, glass bead sterilization, ultrasonic cleaner, autoclave, chemiclave and various chemical disinfectants. [9][10][11] From almost all the articles, it is evident that steam sterilization (autoclaving) continues to be more efficacious than other methods evaluated, followed closely by dry heat sterilization. The reason for this mainly is that moist heat has better penetrative potential as compared to dry heat. ...
... This strongly indicates that whenever possible, burs should be disposed after a single use. [9][10][11] It is important to note that presoaking of burs in soapy water/disinfectant is crucial to loosen the debris that is adhering on the burs. Ultrasonic systems can also be used for enhanced debridement. ...
Article
Full-text available
Infection control is a term used to describe the precautions, policies, and procedures undertaken in a healthcare setting in order to minimize the risk of spreading an infection. It helps prevent the transmission of disease-producing agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi from one patient to another, from the dental practitioner and dental staff to patients, and from patients to dental practitioner or other dental staff. Among the many aspects of infection control, sterilization and disinfection of instruments and associated appliances play a crucial role for any infection control regimen to be successful in a health-care setting. Sterilization and disinfection of instruments can be described in general as decontamination procedures for treating instruments, enabling their safe usage. Failure to adhere to recommended sterilization guidelines and protocols can lead to serious cross-infection causing a disease which could be far more incapacitating than what the patient was originally suffering from. It also increases the chances of persistence of the infection. In either case, treatment outcomes are drastically reduced, rendering the entire treatment unfruitful. Sterilization and disinfection of instruments are of particular significance in the field of endodontics due to the intrinsic nature of the various procedures involved as part of the field and the type of instruments that are used. Routine decontamination procedures are usually not effective due to the complex, intricate, and minute design of various endodontic instruments. In addition, it is very important to take into account the effect of various sterilization protocols on the material of the instrument. This review article aims to describe the various sterilization and disinfection procedures for endodontic instruments in a concise manner, taking into consideration the potential effects that the sterilization/disinfection procedure might have on the instrument to be sterilized. Hopefully, it will make it easier for clinicians to choose the most suited/appropriate sterilization and disinfection procedure for any given endodontic instrument.
... Las normas de bioseguridad se aplican en todas las fases de atención al paciente para minimizar riesgos de infecciones cruzadas, particularmente ante patógenos como el virus de la hepatitis B y C, virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH), Mycobacterium tuberculosis y Coronavirus 2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), subrayando la importancia de la higiene de manos, la esterilización de instrumentos, el uso adecuado de equipo de protección personal, seguridad con objetos cortopunzantes, prácticas de inyección seguras y superficies ambientales limpias y desinfectadas (4) . ...
Article
Full-text available
RESUMEN Objetivos: Verificar la efectividad de las autoclaves mediante indicadores químicos en las clínicas preprofesionales de una institución superior. Materiales y Métodos: Se efectuó un estudio observacional en clínicas preprofesionales de una institución superior de formación para odontólogos en la ciudad de Cuenca, Ecuador. Se utilizaron 94 lecturas con indicadores químicos en dos autoclaves funcionales distribuidas para tres clínicas. La evaluación se basó en el testigo 3M® e integrador químico 3M® Attest® 1243B, con resultados clasificados como «Aceptado» o «Rechazado». Los indicadores se colocaron en diversas ubicaciones dentro de las autoclaves y se monitorearon durante cuatro semanas, en dos momentos del día específicos. Resultados: De los 94 indicadores químicos utilizados, el 63,8% resultaron en "Aceptado", evidenciando la efectividad de la esterilización, mientras que el 36,2% se catalogaron como "Rechazados", indicando esterilizaciones no satisfactorias. La distribución de resultados varió entre clínicas y según la ubicación de los indicadores dentro de las autoclaves. Conclusiones: El estudio concluye que, aunque la mayoría de los ciclos de esterilización en las autoclaves de las clínicas preprofesionales son efectivos, existe un margen significativo para mejorar la eficacia de estos procedimientos. La ubicación de los indicadores químicos dentro de la autoclave influye en los resultados de esterilización, sugiriendo la importancia de optimizar la colocación del instrumental para asegurar una esterilización uniforme y completa. ABSTRACT Objectives: Verify the effectiveness of autoclaves using chemical indicators in the pre-professional clinics of a higher institution. Materials and methods: An observational study was carried out in pre-professional clinics of a higher training institution for dentists in the city of Cuenca, Ecuador. Ninety-four readings with chemical indicators were used in two functional autoclaves distributed among three clinics. The evaluation was based on the 3M® control and chemical integrator 3M® Attest® 1243B, with results classified as "Accepted" or "Rejected." The indicators were placed in various locations within the autoclaves and monitored for four weeks, at two specific times of the day. Results: Of the 94 chemical indicators used, 63.8% resulted in "Accepted," evidencing the effectiveness of the sterilization, while 36.2% were classified as "Rejected," indicating unsatisfactory sterilizations. The distribution of results varied between clinics and according to the location of the indicators within the autoclaves. Conclusions: The study concludes that, although most autoclave sterilization cycles in pre-professional clinics are effective, there is significant room to improve the effectiveness of these procedures. The location of chemical indicators within the autoclave influences sterilization results, suggesting the importance of optimizing instrument placement to ensure uniform and complete sterilization.
... 22,23 Furthermore, these burs can be a potential source of cross-infection, as none of the methods of sterilization and disinfection have been found to be absolutely efficacious in their decontamination. 24,25 With advancements in the field of dentistry, the concept of tissue preservation is gaining high popularity, leading to the development of different techniques for the removal of caries based on a biological and conservative approach known as "minimal intervention dentistry" (MID). 4 Two such techniques based on the principles of MID are CMCR and polymer burs. ...
... 48 Autoclaving can destroy all microorganisms, and it is the best method to decontaminate dental burs and handpiece. 49,50 In the amidst of COVID-19, using a new bur for every patient should be considered. ...
Article
Full-text available
Constant risk of contact and proximity to oral cavity and the production of aerosol have increased the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)among dentists. Transmission of coronavirus (CoV) is through respiratory droplets, close contact, or aerosols. Coronaviruses are lipid bilayer enveloped viruses with the viral structure formed primarily of structural proteins having affinity toward the angiotensin-converting enzyme2 receptors, which are found abundantly on the mucosa of tongue. These facts have led to categorization of dentistry as a very high exposure risk job with high potential for exposure to COVID-19. Due to the absence of vaccine till date, it is crucial to scrutinize and refine preventive maneuver and to implement strict and efficient infection control protocols to prevent cross infection of COVID-19 among dentists, dental team, and patients in the clinical setup. Based on the existing guidelines and the recently initiated guidelines from Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization, this study provides infection control strategies in the field of dentistry in general and in prosthodontics in particular. Keywords: Aerosols, COVID-19, Dentistry, Disinfection, Personal protective equipment, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 .
... In routine dental practice, adequate disinfection and sterilization methods have to be followed to control and reduce the risk of cross-transmission of infection. [3] The burs when provided by the manufacturers comprise a high bacterial content that can be contagious and hence are required to be sterilized before they can be used on patients. [1] Many methods have been introduced to sterilize or disinfect dental burs in which autoclaving and hot air oven methods remain the gold standard and the most used method of disinfecting dental instruments. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: The study was conducted to compare and evaluate the disinfecting efficacy of four different herbal oils with standard autoclaving against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis). Fifty round burs were infected with E. faecalis and dipped into the chemical test solution for 10 min. The disinfecting efficacy for each test chemical was checked using culture method on blood agar plate and peptone water test to check for turbidity. Clove leaf oil and Tulsi leaf oil have very good antimicrobial efficacy against E. faecalis which are similar and comparable to that of autoclaving. Aim: This stusy aimed to compare the efficacy of pomegranate peel extract (PPE) oil, Garlic oil, Tulsi leaf oil, and Clove leaf oil with standard autoclaving on dental round burs tested against E. faecalis. Settings and design: The disinfecting capability of four different experimental oils against autoclave was evaluated on 50 round burs exposed to E faecalis in an In-vitro study. Materials and methods: A total of 50 round dental burs were exposed to E. faecalis and the disinfecting capability of four different experimental oils against autoclave was evaluated by counting colony-forming units (CFUs) and turbidity test. Statistical analysis: Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM), Chicago. The CFUs between the five groups (I, II, III, IV, V) were compared using the Chi-square test. The level of significance was kept at 5%. Results: Clove leaf oil showed the best disinfection efficacy comparable to autoclaving, followed by Tulsi leaf oil with no statistically significant difference between them, whereas garlic oil and PPE oil were significantly less effective against E. faecalis. Conclusion: Clove leaf oil and Tulsi leaf oil can be used for disinfecting dental burs, infected with E. faecalis, as alternatives to autoclaving.
... [10] However, sterilization procedure does not completely remove the prion proteins, which can potentially cause infection. [11] Hence, for sterilization to be effective, it should be done following proper cleaning of the handpiece, without which even the sterilization procedure will be compromised. [8] Hence, it is important that the dental handpieces used in everyday dental procedures should be thoroughly decontaminated to provide harmless and clean dental service to the population. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Burs are unique by virtue of their complex architecture which makes precleaning and sterilization difficult to achieve. Inadequate sterilization causes cross infection. Aim The aim of the present study was to assess and compare the effectiveness of various sterilization methods of dental diamond burs commonly utilised in dental practice. Methodology The current study was done to investigate the efficacy of four decontamination methods on fifty diamond burs. These burs were used among ten patients who were indicated for pulp therapy in primary deciduous molars. Access cavity preparation was prepared using dental burs and divided into five groups: Group I - being control group (unsterilized), Group II - Contaminated burs sterilized using 2% glutaraldehyde, Group III -Contaminated burs sterilized in autoclave, Group IV - Contaminated burs sterilized in ultraviolet steriliser, and Group V - Contaminated burs sterilized using 70% isopropyl alcohol. All the burs were immersed in the Brain − Heart Infusion broth, incubated for 24 h at 37°C to check the sterility of burs. Bacterial culture (Broth turbidity) was then measured for its optical density (OD) using the spectrophotometer. OD values reading were recorded and statistical analysis was done using Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney's post hoc TEST. Results Among all decontamination methods, 2% glutaraldehyde and autoclave showed the most significant change in microbial load compared to the other group at P < 0.001. Conclusion Sterilization with 2% glutaraldehyde followed by autoclave of dental burs is the key step in achieving success in the endodontic procedures with less microbial load which determines the success of pulpectomy procedures.
Article
Background: Rotary cutting instruments (RCIs) are sterilized routinely. The authors aimed to analyze the structural integrity, presence of dirt, and microbial contamination of RCIs used in clinical practice after processing. Methods: Eighty-four RCIs (42 carbide burs, 42 diamond burs) were divided into baseline, control, and test groups. The RCIs were evaluated by means of scanning electron microscopy and microbiological analysis. Evaluation criteria included presence of structural damage, dirt, biofilm, and isolated cells and their phenotypic profile. Results: The carbide burs from all groups and diamond burs from the test groups had structural damage. Dirt was observed in the baseline and test groups. Three bacterial species were isolated from 4 RCIs (9.52%). An isolated cell was observed from 1 carbide bur. Biofilm was observed on 3 RCIs (7.14%). Conclusions: RCIs should not be subjected to multiple uses; after the first clinical use they accumulate structural damage and dirt that hampers the cleaning step, causing failure in the sterilization process. Practical implications: The presence of microorganisms and structural damage on the RCIs confirmed that they are not amenable to processing, a fact that characterizes them as a single-use health care product.
Article
Full-text available
Background: A novel coronavirus emerged from Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Dental healthcare providers are at the highest risk of exposure since the primary source of the virus is saliva, and dentists are the front-line personnel working with the oral cavity. Since orthodontic treatment is a long-term procedure for children and teenagers, and because of the critical gap in preparing a specific guideline on orthodontic treatment procedures, orthodontic practitioners have faced numerous complicated issues in this regard. This mini-review aimed to summarize the facts that the orthodontic settings should be aware of the dental difficulties during COVID-19 with a particular focus on orthodontic treatment. Methods: In this short review, electronic databases of Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles and guidelines from January 2019 to March 2021 using the following key terms: “COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV-2,” “Pandemic,” “Orthodontics,” and “Orthodontists.” Results: Gathering recommendations of experts and several guidelines led to the following crucial steps in orthodontic procedures: screening through a telehealth questionnaire; admitting just patients into the dental center; ventilating the waiting room; measuring the temperature of patients’ bodies; disinfecting the dental unit and instruments after each visit; using personal protective equipment; washing hands; minimizing the use of high-speed handpieces to reduce the aerosol generation; and sterilization of archwires, orthodontic markers, photographic retractors, molar bands, burs, miniscrews, and unit waterline with proper methods. Conclusions: All dentists should be up-to-date on cross-transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and follow the international infection control protocols as well as national/provincial/local guidelines and apply them to the regional settings after generalization and matching with the condition.
Article
To determine the current pattern of use and handling of tungsten carbide debonding burs (TCDBs) within UK hospital-based orthodontic departments. Cross-sectional survey. Questionnaires were sent to 217 departments within the UK and an overall response rate of 93% was achieved. Most hospital departments (68%) currently use TCDBs designed for a slow handpiece. Just over half (55%) discard their TCDBs after single-use, but only 24% adequately decontaminate new burs prior to initial use. Almost all those that reuse TCDBs decontaminate them in a sterilizer and carry out combinatorial presterilization cleaning. The most common methods are manual cleaning followed by an ultrasonic bath (26%) or washer-disinfector (15%); or alternatively, soaking of burs followed by manual cleaning (13%). For those departments that use only a single method, manual cleaning (29%) or a washer-disinfector (10%) are most common. In terms of sterilizing TCDBs, 58% used a vacuum phase autoclave and 13% a downward displacement. There is wide variation in the handling of TCDBs in UK hospital-based orthodontic departments. Decontamination of new TCDBs prior to initial use is carried out by less than a third of departments. Despite their classification as reusable devices, just over half discard TCDBs after single use. However, among those that do reuse TCDBs, almost all decontaminate them correctly.
Article
The complex miniature architecture of dental burs and endodontic files makes precleaning and sterilization difficult. Devising a sterilization protocol for endodontic files and dental burs requires care, and some have suggested that these instruments be considered single-use devices. One purpose of this study was to determine the effective-ness of various sterilization techniques currently used in dentistry for the resterilization of dental burs and endodontic files. The second aim was to determine whether new dental burs and endodontic files, as supplied in packages from the manufacturer, are sterile. The sterility of new (unused) and used dental burs and endodontic files before and after various sterilization procedures was analyzed. New burs and files were tested immediately after removal from manufacturers' packaging, with or without prior sterilization. Burs and files that had been used in various dental offices were precleaned, packaged, resterilized and then tested for various pathogens. Each item was individually removed from the sterilization packaging, transferred by sterile technique into Todd-Hewitt broth, incubated at 37degreesC for 72 hours and observed for bacterial growth. Sterilization procedures were 100 percent effective for unused burs and unused files but were less than 100 percent effective for all other test groups. Contamination rates following sterilization ranged from 15 percent for one group of used burs (p = 0.01) to 58 percent for one group of used files (p <0.001). Dental burs and endodontic files, as packaged by the manufacturer, are not sterile and should therefore be sterilized before first use. The resterilization procedures tested here were not adequate, and more rigorous sterilization procedures are needed. If such procedures cannot be devised, these instruments should perhaps be considered single-use devices.
Article
Since burs used in OMF surgery are a source of microbial contamination, sterilisation of the burs is an important aspect of infection control. A two-part study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of using the glass bead steriliser to sterilise long-shank burs. The laboratory and clinical studies indicated that the glass bead steriliser was effective in sterilising long-shank burs in 60 s.
Article
High-speed, air-driven handpieces and dental burs are contaminated after use and thus they can be a source of cross-contamination of patients. The effectiveness of the disinfectant solutions of benzalkonium chloride and aqueous activated 2% glutaraldehyde was compared in tests involving suspensions of two microorganisms. The glutaraldehyde solution was bacteriocidal within five minutes in tests involving Streptococcus pyogenes, and within three hours in tests with Bacillus stearothermophilus. Benzalkonium chloride appeared to be less effective.
Article
Los esterilizadores a bolillas de vidrio son comúnmente usados como auxiliares en el consultorio, para una rápida esterilización de instrumentos endodónticos. Esta esterilización se lleva a cabo por medio del calor seco. La mayoría de los fabricantes de estas unidades recomiendan para las marcas más conocidas tiempos operatorios de 5 segundos como suficientes. Sin embargo, Hanne (1), Breenkötter (2), Steinkamm (3), Grossman (4), Spring (5), Oliet (6), Windeler y Walter (7) así como Klein y Mayer (8) informaron sobre tiempos operativos hasta de 60 segundos. Ott (9) encontró bacterias cuyo tiempo de supervivencia superó los 3 minutos. Estos resultados dependen de las diferentes condiciones de ensayo. Los métodos de ensayo estandarizados son por lo tanto necesarios para obtener resultados comparables y comprobar la eficacia de los esterilizadores a bolilla. La finalidad de este estudio fue: (a) Lograr métodos de ensayo estandarizados y reproducibles para esterilizadores de bolillas; (b) Aplicar condiciones que simulen una realidad clínica aún bajo circunstancias adversas; y (c) Medir tiempo y temperatura como factores determinantes.
Article
Ultrasonic cleaners are a valued aid to instrument cleaning in many general dental practices. This article reviews the different ways their cleaning efficiency has been assessed. It is recommended that burs and files should be cleaned ultrasonically before first use. Prophylaxis cups are not sufficiently decontaminated by ultrasonic cleaning and therefore should be discarded after use. Although instruments are visibly clean after ultrasonic cleaning and generally clean when viewed with an electron microscope, ultrasound alone is insufficient for sterilisation. Further avenues of research have been highlighted.
Article
Cleaning items directly involved in patient care makes the disinfection or sterilization process easier. Specific steps in cleaning instruments and equipment and dental unit surfaces are described. Recommended infection control procedures are listed, together with monitoring methods.