Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T05:26:00.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Usage History, Instrument Complexity, and Different Cleaning Procedures on the Cleanliness of Blood-Contaminated Dental Surgical Instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Gang Wu  and
Xuefen Yu
Gang Wu
Affiliation:
School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China Department of Oral Function, Section of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Xuefen Yu*
Affiliation:
School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
*
School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University, 395 Yan'an Street, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China, 310006 (noprint2000@hotmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our study assessed the factors that influence the resistance of blood residues on dental surgical instruments to washer-disinfector-based cleaning procedures in a clinical setting. The use of 2 additional cleaning methods—presoaking and scrubbing by hand—and the use of newer and/or less structurally complex instruments significantly increased the efficacy of washer-disinfector cleaning.

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 30 , Issue 7 , July 2009 , pp. 702 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Sutton, JM, Dickinson, J, Walker, JT, Raven, ND. Methods to minimize the risks of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease transmission by surgical procedures: where to set the standard? Clin Infect Dis 2006;43:757–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme. Decontamination Into Practice. Part 1—Cleaning of Dental Instruments. March 2007. Available at: http://www.sdcep.org.uk/index.aspxJo = 2333. Accessed January 4, 2009.Google Scholar
3.Perakaki, K, Mellor, AC, Qualtrough, AJ. Comparison of an ultrasonic cleaner and a washer disinfector in the cleaning of endodontic files. J Hosp Infect 2007;67:355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Linsuwanont, P, Parashos, P, Messer, HH. Cleaning of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37:19–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Aasim, SA, Mellor, AC, Qualtrough, AJ. The effect of pre-soaking and time in the ultrasonic cleaner on the cleanliness of sterilized endodontic files. Int Endod J 2006;39:143–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Van Eldik, DA, Zilm, PS, Rogers, AH, Marin, PD. A SEM evaluation of debris removal from endodontic files after cleaning and steam sterilization procedures. Aust Dent J 2004;49:128–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Wichelhaus, A, Brauchle, G, Mertmann, M, Sander, FG. Corrosion of orthodontic pliers using different sterilization procedures. J Orofac Orthop 2004;65:501–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Sanchez, E, Macdonald, G. Decontaminating dental instruments: testing the effectiveness of selected methods. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:359-362, 364, 366 passim.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed