Citation Information :
Ghasemi E, Badrian H, Hosseini N, Khalighinejad N. The Effect of Three Different Disinfectant Materials on Polyether Impressions by Spray Method. World J Dent 2012; 3 (3):229-233.
Dentists, dental equipments and dental laboratories are exposed to different types of pathogenic microorganisms. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of three different types of disinfectant agents: Sodium hypochlorite 0.525%, Epimax and Deconex, on polyether impressions after 5 and 10 minutes.
Materials and methods
In this in vitro experimental study, 66 circular samples of polyether impression material of 1 cm diameter and 2 mm thickness were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC29213) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC27853) and Candida albicans fungus (PTCC5027). Except for control samples, all of them were disinfected with sodium hypochlorite 0.525, Deconex and Epimax by way of spraying. Afterward, they kept in plastic bags with humid rolled cotton for 5 and 10 minutes. In order to isolate bacteria, the samples were immersed in 2% trypsin for 1 hour and then the solution was diluted with normal salin in portion of 1, 1/2, and 1/4. The trypsin suspensions were transferred to culture plates and the number of colonies was counted after 24 and 48 hours for bacteria and after 72 hours for fungus. For data analysis Mann-Whitney statistical test was used (α = 0.05).
Results
Epimax and sodium hypochlorite thoroughly eliminated Candida albicans as time elapsed from 5 to 10 minutes; however, the other two microorganisms were not eliminated completely. Deconex was completely efficient for all microorganisms when immersion time was enhanced from 5 to 10 minutes. There was a significant difference between efficacy of Deconex-sodium hypochlorite and sodium hypochlorite-Epimax for Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 5-minute immersion (p-value:0/046) Moreover, Deconex and sodium hypochlorite were significantly different for Staphylococcus aureus (p-value:0/046) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in 10-minute immersion (p < 0.05).
Conclusion
According to the results of this study, none of the three disinfection materials could eradicate three different kinds of microorganisms in 5 minutes, but in 10 minutes, Deconex could completely eradicate all microorganisms compared to other disinfection agents, which is a good indicator for high efficacy of this agent in disinfecting polyether impressions.
How to cite this article
Ghasemi E, Badrian H, Hosseini N, Khalighinejad N. The Effect of Three Different Disinfectant Materials on Polyether Impressions by Spray Method. World J Dent 2012;3(3):229-233.
Effect of chemical disinfectants on the transverse strength of heat-polymerized acrylic resins submitted to mechanical and chemical polishing. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;92(4):382-88.
The presence and identification of organisms transmitted to dental laboratories. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1990;64(2):235-37.
Cross-infection control of impressions: A questionnaire survey of practice among private dentists in Hong Kong.
A revision of technical report No. 10. Recommendations for hygiene in dental practice including treatment of infectious patients. International Dental Journal 1987;37:142-45.
Council on prosthetic services and dental laboratory relations. Guidelines for infection control in dental office and the commercial dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc Chicago 1985;110(6):969-72.
Antimicrobial effect of 4 disinfectants on alginate, polyether, and polyvinyl siloxane impression materials. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 2007;20(3):299
Effect of immersion disinfection with perform-ID on alginate, an alginate alternative, an addition-cured silicone and resultant type III gypsum casts. British Dental Journal 2007;202(1):E1.
Infection control in prosthodontics: A choice no longer. General Dentistry 1989;37(1):29
A microbiologic investigation following the disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid materials using the spray method. Journal of the California Dental Association 2009;37(7):471
Accuracy of polyether and addition silicone after long-term immersion disinfection. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1997;78(3):245-49.
Efficacy of various spray disinfectants on irreversible hydrocolloid impressions. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 1992;5(1):47
Sodium hypochlorite disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1992;67(5):628-31.
Microbiological risk factors in dentistry. Current status of knowledge. Ann Agric Environ Med 2005;12:157-63.
Dental impressions. The probability of contamination and a method of disinfection. British Dental Journal 1978;145(6):184
Carriage of oral flora on irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1991;65(2):244-49.
Cross-infection control in general dental practice: dentists' behaviour compared with their knowledge and opinions. British Dental Journal 1995; 178(10):365-69.
The persistence of micro-organisms on impression materials following disinfection. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 1991;4(4):382
The effect of chlorinated disinfecting solutions on alginate impressions. Restorative Dentistry 1987;3(4):86
A survey of disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid and silicone impressions in European Union Dental Schools: Epidemiologic study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2004;92(4):321
ADA Council on Scientific Affairs and ADA Council on Dental Practice. J Am Dent Assoc 1996 May;127(5):672-80.
Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of removing microorganisms to disinfect patient-derived dental impressions. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 2008;21(6):531
Oral candidosis in HIV-infected patients. Current HIV Research 2008;6(6):485-99.
Disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions: A comparative study. Int J Prosthodont 1992 Nov-Dec;5(6):563-67.
