| 0770 Comparison of different cleaning methods used for dental instruments | ||
|
C. BUDGE1, M. VASSEY1, T. POOLMAN1, M. FULFORD2, A. SMITH3, N. NAYUNI4, D. PERRETT4, P. MARSH1, M. SUTTON1, J. WALKER1, and N. RAVEN1, 1Centre for Emergency Preparedness & Response, Salisbury, United Kingdom, 2C/O Health Protection Agency, Polsham, 3University of Glasgow, United Kingdom, 4Barts & The London, United Kingdom IntroductionDental instruments including matrix-band holders and forceps have complex surfaces that are difficult to clean before sterilisation. If organic and inorganic residues remain, penetration of the sterilising agent may be impaired, increasing the probability of pathogens surviving the sterilisation process in sufficient quantities to transmit disease. Objectives: This study investigated the efficiency of three instrument cleaning methods used in general dental practice (GDP) (manual cleaning only, manual plus ultrasonic cleaning, benchtop washer disinfectors) and validated washer disinfectors (WD) located in Sterile Services Departments (SSD). Methods: A range of reprocessed instruments used in clinical practice from both GDPs and SSDs were examined for presence of residual risk materials using a combination of visual score and a sensitive protein assay based on o-phthaldialdehyde/N-acetyl cysteine as the fluorescent reagent with reference to a standard curve determined using bovine serum albumin. Results: No significant differences were present between the manual only, SSD WD or benchtop WD cleaning processes. However, significant differences were observed between each of these processes and the combined manual-ultrasonic cleaning process, where larger residual protein deposits remained. Regression analysis showed no positive correlation between visual scoring and residual protein (p >0.05). Except for the SSD WD, all methods showed large variations between different instruments of the same type decontaminated by the same method. Conclusion: Cleaning efficiencies of the different processes vary considerably and appear to demonstrate the manual plus ultrasonic cleaning process to be significantly worse than the other three processes in terms of residual protein, though the proportion of residual human protein was not examined. Visual scoring is not a reliable measure of cleanliness. These results require further investigation and explanation but may have implications for the type of cleaning processes used within GDPs and SSDs. Department of Health Project-0070099. | ||
| Seq #83 - Microbiology - Disinfection, Antibacterial actions 11:30 AM-1:00 PM, Friday, September 12, 2008 Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Poster Hall 2 | ||
|
Back to the PEF IADR 2008 Program
| ||