World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2011 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Two Methods of Sterilization for Rotary Nickel-Titanium Files: An in vitro Study

Ramesh Giriyappa Halebathi, Preeti Karan Dodwad, Veerendra M Uppin, Bhavana Gandhi, Priyanka Sarangi, Neetika Sahni

Citation Information : Halebathi RG, Dodwad PK, Uppin VM, Gandhi B, Sarangi P, Sahni N. Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Two Methods of Sterilization for Rotary Nickel-Titanium Files: An in vitro Study. World J Dent 2011; 2 (3):193-198.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1082

Published Online: 01-09-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).


Abstract

Sterilization in endodontic practice is a must as the major motive of an endodontist is to combat endodontic diseases by eliminating the causative microorganisms. Owing to the design of the endodontic files, it is very conducive for the microorganisms and debris to be anchored onto them. So, the aim of this study was to investigate the sterilizing efficacy of two methods of sterilization using rotary nickeltitanium files: Autoclave and chemical sterilization using two solutions (Quitanet Plus and GlutraMil) and to check whether any sterilizing technique could match the standard of autoclave and which of the two chemical sterilizing agents were more efficient. The rotary endodontic files contaminated with Bacillus stearothermophilus spore suspension, were sterilized by the two methods and their efficacy was checked by immersing the contaminated files in test tubes containing thioglycollate medium. The results of the study showed that the files sterilized by autoclave were 100% sterile and those sterilized with GlutraMil showed 75% sterility with Quitanet showing only 25% sterility. So, the study concluded that autoclave could be used as a reliable method of sterilization in clinical practice but GlutraMil and Quitanet Plus cannot be relied upon completely.


PDF Share
  1. Infection control in the health care setting. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service 2002.
  2. Contaminated dental instruments. J Hosp Infect. January 2009;51:233-35.
  3. Levels of microbial contamination on surgical instruments. American J Infect Control 1998;26:143-45.
  4. Applied research still needed on infection control procedures. Am J Dent 2000;13:285-86.
  5. An evaluation of sterilization of endodontic instruments in artificial sponges. Journal of endodontics January 1998;24(1).
  6. Contaminated dental instruments. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:233-35.
  7. The sterilization of endodontic hand files. Journal of Endodontics June 1996;22(6).
  8. Oral microbiology and immunology (2nd ed). Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co 1994:414-21.
  9. Microbiological evaluation of endodontic files after cleaning and steam sterilization procedures. Australian Dental Journal 2004;49(3):122-27.
  10. A cleaning protocol for rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. Australian Dental Journal 2004;49(1):20-27.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.