Cross-Infection Control Policy Adopted by Dental Technicians
Medidas de Controle de Infecção Cruzada Adotadas pelos Protéticos
Campanha, N.H.; Pavarina, A.C.; Vergani, C.E.; Machado, A.L.; Giampaolo, E.T.
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.33, n4, p.195-201, 2004
Abstract
In order to prevent the transmission of infectious disease, effective infection control procedures should be exercised by all dentists, in-office dental auxiliaries and dental technicians. This survey aimed to gather information from routine practice about cross-infection control of dental laboratory work in relation to whether impressions and items of laboratory work were routinely disinfected or not. One hundred and thirty-one subjects were interviewed by the same interviewer, using a structured questionnaire. There were 17 women (13%) and 114 men (87%). The results revealed that 51% of the interviewed technicians attended a specific technical prosthetic course. Fifty four percent of the professionals in this study have been practicing for over 20 years; 13.1%, between 15 and 20 years; 8.5%, between 11 and 15 years; 16.9% between 5 and 10 years and 7.7% started practice in the last five years. According to the results, 88% percent of the respondents routinely rinsed dental impressions with water. When a prosthesis reaches the laboratory for finishing and polishing, the professionals answered to proceed as follows: 79.2% washed the piece in tap water on arrival; 10.8% did the polishing without previously undertaking any prophylactic measure; 9.2% disinfected the item and 0.8% did not answer. Although a great number of respondents are aware of the transmission of viral and bacterial infections, the results of this study demonstrated that there is a need for more education to prevent cross-contamination in the carrying of the items from the clinic to the laboratory and vice-versa.
Keywords
Laboratory infection, contamination, infection control, dental, disinfection, dental technicians
Resumo
Com o objetivo de evitar a transmissão de doenças infecciosas, medidas que visem o controle de infecção cruzada devem ser adotadas pelos cirurgiões dentistas, auxiliares odontológicos e técnicos de laboratório. Este estudo investigou as condutas de rotina adotadas pelos técnicos para prevenir a contaminação cruzada no laboratório de prótese. Foram coletados informações referentes à desinfecção de moldes e outros itens protéticos. Questionários foram aplicados verbalmente a 131 profissionais pelo mesmo entrevistador. Entre os técnicos entrevistados, 17 eram mulheres (13%) e 114 eram homens (87%). Os resultados revelaram que 51% dos técnicos frequentaram um curso técnico. Cinqüenta e quatro por cento dos técnicos praticavam a profissão por mais de 20 anos; 13,1%, entre 15 e 20 anos; 8,5%, entre 11 e 15 anos; 16,9% entre 5 e 10 anos e 7,7% iniciaram suas atividades nos últimos 5 anos. De acordo com os resultados, 88% dos entrevistados enxaguavam rotineiramente os moldes com água. Com relação aos procedimentos adotados quando uma prótese é recebida no laboratório para polimento e acabamento, foram obtidos os seguintes resultados: 79,2% dos técnicos somente lavavam a prótese em água corrente, 10,8% realizavam o polimento sem medidas profiláticas, 9,2% desinfetavam a prótese e 0,8% não responderam. Embora grande parte dos entrevistados estivesse consciente da transmissão de infecções virais e bacterianas, os resultados deste estudo demonstraram que há a necessidade de maior motivação e instrução aos técnicos para a prevenção de contaminação cruzada durante o envio e o recebimento de trabalhos protéticos entre o laboratório de prótese e o consultório odontológico.
Palavras-chave
Infecção laboratorial, contaminação, controle de infecções dentárias, desinfecção, técnicos em prótese dentária
References
1. Adabo GL, Zanarotti E, Fonseca RG, Cruz CAS. Effect of disinfectant agents on dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 621-4.
2. American Dental Association. Council on Scientific Affairs and ADA Council on Dental Practice. Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996;127: 672‑80.
3. Anusavice KJ. Phillip’s science of dental materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1996.
4. Backenstose WM, Wells JG. Side effects of immersiontype cleansers on the metal components of dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 1977; 37: 615-21.
5. Chau VB, Saunders TR, Pimsler M, Elfring DR. In-depth disinfection of acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74: 309-13.
6. Clifford TJ, Burnett CA. The practice of consultants in restorative Dentistry (UK) in routine infection control for impressions and laboratory work. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 1995; 3: 175-7.
7. Federation Dentaire Internationale. Recommendations for hygiene in dental practice, including treatment for the infectious patient. A revision of Technical Report Nº.
10. Int Dent J. 1987; 37: 142-5.
8. Gwinnett AJ, Caputo L. The effectiveness of ultrasonic denture cleaning: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50: 20-5.
9. Hazelkorn HM, Bloom BE, Jovanovic BD. Infection control in the dental office. Has anything changed? J Am Dent Assoc. 1996; 127: 786-90.
10. Henderson CW, Schwartz RS, Herbold ET, Mayhew RB. Evaluation of the barrier system, an infection control system for the dental laboratory. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 58: 517-21.
11. Ivanoviski S, Savage NW, Brockhurst PJ, Bird PS. Disinfection of dental stone casts: antimicrobial effects and physical property alterations. Dent Mater. 1995; 11: 19-23.
12. Jagger DC, Huggett R, Harrison A. Cross-infection control in dental laboratories. Br Dent J. 1995; 179: 93-6.
13. Kahn RC, Lancaster MV, Kate W Jr. The microbiologic cross-contamination of dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 47: 556-9.
14. Katberg JWJr. Cross-contamination via the prosthodontic laboratory. J Prosthet Dent. 1974; 32: 412-9.
15. Kugel G, Perry RD, Ferrari M, Lalicata P. Disinfection and communication practices: a survey of U. S. laboratories. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131: 786-92.
16. Larato DC. Disinfection of pumice. J Prosthet Dent. 1967; 18: 534-5.
17. Ma T, Johnson GH, Gordon, GE. Effects of chemical disinfectants on the surface characteristics and color of denture resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77: 197-204.
18. McCarthy GM, Koval JJ, MacDonald JK. Compliance with recommended infection control procedures among Canadian dentists: results of a national survey. Am J Infect Control. 1999; 27: 377-84.
19. Merchant MV. An update on infection control in the dental laboratory. QDT 1997 (special issue): 157-65.
20. Molinari JA, Runnells RR. Role of disinfectants in infection control. Dent Clin North Am. 1991; 35: 323-7.
21. Pavarina AC, Pizzolitto AC, Machado AL, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET. An infection control protocol: effectiveness of immersion solutions to reduce the microbial growth on dental prostheses. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30: 532-6.
22. Pavarina AC, Machado AL, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE. Effects of chemical disinfectants on the transverse strength of denture base acrylic resins. J Oral Rehabil. 2003; 30: 1085-9.
23. Powell GL, Runnells RD, Saxon BA, Whisenant BK. The presence and identification of organisms transmitted to dental laboratories. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 235-7.
24. Rudd RW, Senia ES, McCleskey FK, Adams ED. Sterilization of complete dentures with sodium hypochlorite. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51: 318-21.
25. Stern MA, Whitacre RJ. Avoiding cross-contamination in prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 46: 120-2.
26. Vig RG. Reducing laboratory aerosol contamination. J Prosthet Dent. 1969; 22: 156-7.
27. Williams HN, Falkler WAJr, Hasler JF, Libonati JP. The recovery and significance of nonoral opportunistic pathogenic bacteria in dental laboratory pumice. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 54: 725-30.
28. Witt S, Hart P. Cross-infection hazards associated with the use of pumice in dental laboratories. J Dent. 1990; 18: 281-3.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email