medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista ADM Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
    • Send manuscript
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2023, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2023; 80 (1)

Short and long-term microbiological analysis of the material for sterilize dental instruments.

Carrasco-Ruíz MÁ, Ortiz-Ortiz E, Lucero-Reyes A, Lechuga-Rojas MR, Limón-Huitrón P, García-Torres E
Full text How to cite this article 10.35366/109721

DOI

DOI: 10.35366/109721
URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.35366/109721

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 6-10
PDF size: 246.16 Kb.


Key words:

sterilization, dental instruments, efficacy.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: material such as cloth, paper or plastic bags to wrap dental instruments is used by health professionals, however, it is necessary to clarify the effectiveness of each one and determine if it remains sterile after the procedure. Objective: to determine the effectiveness of cloth, plastic and paper as materials to sterilize dental instruments in the short and long term. Material and methods: we carry out solid and liquid cultures of sterilized instruments in three materials, at different post-sterilization times, incubated at 36 oC for 72 hours under aerobic and anaerobic conditions, and the results were analyzed using a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by from a Dunn's test. Results: our results showed that immediately after the sterilization process the three materials are effective (Kruskal-Wallis; p = 0.2752), 24 hours (p = 0.2492), 7 (p = 0.0509) and 14 (p = 0.0006) days. Twenty-four hours after the cloth is not effective, plastic decreases its effectiveness and paper remain effective. Conclusion: in our results, paper is the best option to sterilize dental instruments.


REFERENCES

  1. Hernández LS, Alavez RS, García HJ, Flores LMG. Monitoreo con indicadores biológicos de rápida lectura de las autoclaves de CEYE de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Tecnológica de México. Rev Odont Mex. 2016; 20 (2): 93-97.

  2. Laheij AM, Kistler JO, Belibasakis GN, Valimaa H, de Soet JJ; European Oral Microbiology Workshop (EOMW). Healthcare-associated viral and bacterial infections in dentistry. J Oral Microbiol. 2012; 4.

  3. La Corte E. Uso de normas de bioseguridad en el consultorio. Rev Mex Odont Clin. 2009; 3 (5): 18-24.

  4. Fernández Feijoo J, Orbezo Chuchón F, Diz Dios P, Limeres Posse J. Desinfección del instrumental en las Unidades de Salud Bucodental del Servicio Gallego de Salud. [Disinfection of dental instruments in dental settings of the Galician Health Service]. Aten Primaria. 2017; 49 (9): 560-561.

  5. Laneve E, Raddato B, Dioguardi M, Di Gioia G, Troiano G, Lo Muzio L. Sterilisation in dentistry: a review of the literature. Int J Dent. 2019; 2019: 6507286.

  6. Rani L, Pradeep. Sterilization protocols in dentistry – A review. J Pharm Res. 2016; 8 (6): 558-564.

  7. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection, sterilization, and antisepsis: an overview. Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44 (5 Suppl): e1-6.

  8. Pankhurst CL, Scully C, Samaranayake L. Dental unit water lines and their disinfection and management: a review. Dent Update. 2017; 44 (4): 284-5, 289-92.

  9. Berovic M. Sterilisation in biotechnology. Biotechnol Annu Rev. 2005; 11: 257-79.

  10. Rodríguez RPO. Protocolos de desinfección y esterilización del instrumental rotatorio en odontología. [Tesis] Universidad Iberoamericana Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Escuela De Odontología. 2020.




Figure 1
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3

2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev ADM. 2023;80