Análise da qualidade de instrumentos rotatórios utilizados por acadêmicos de odontologia
Quality analysis of rotatory instruments used by undergraduate dentistry students
Soares, P.B.F.; Mamede, P.S.; Lemes, E.V.; Castro, C.G.; Fernandes Neto, A.J.; Soares, C.J.
Rev. odontol. UNESP, vol.35, n3, p.149-156, 2006
Resumo
Objetivo: avaliar, por meio de questionário e análise morfológica em microscopia eletrônica de varredura, a qualidade de instrumentos rotatórios usados por acadêmicos de odontologia. Material e Método: 24 alunos do 5º ao 8º períodos foram aleatoriamente selecionados e abordados quanto: freqüência de uso, período de troca, meio de armazenagem, forma de limpeza, métodos de desinfecção e esterilização, disposição de auto-uso. Para a análise morfológica foram recolhidas pontas diamantadas #1014 (P) e brocas carbide esféricas #2 (B) (n = 48) com tempo médio de uso de 6 meses a 1 ano, as quais foram analisadas por meio de microscopia eletrônica de varredura observando: corrosão, integridade das lâminas de corte, retenção de resíduos, perda de diamante. Os dados foram analisados de forma descritiva. Resultados: o questionário mostrou: 67% usavam P e B semanalmente; 62% nunca as trocaram; 67% armazenavam em broqueiro de metal; 54% utilizavam água, sabão e escova para limpeza e 17% não limpavam; 50% utilizavam imersão em álcool para desinfecção; 58% não esterilizavam os instrumentos rotatórios; 29% relatavam não concordar com o uso em si mesmo de P e B. A análise morfológica em MEV mostrou que, em B: 42% apresentavam corrosão leve; 79% perda parcial da integridade das lâminas; 60% apresentavam pequena quantidade de resíduo; 79% eram inadequadas para uso, e, em P: 67% possuiam corrosão leve; 90% presença de resíduo; 48% perda de diamante; 83% eram inadequadas para o uso. Conclusão: concluiu-se que não há relação dos atos de armazenagem, limpeza e esterilização de instrumentos com qualidade morfológica dos instrumentos rotatórios. As brocas e as pontas diamantadas empregadas não apresentavam qualidade adequada para o uso clínico.
Palavras-chave
Broca, ponta diamantada, biossegurança, resíduos odontológicos, microscopia eletrônica de varredura
Abstract
Objective: to evaluate the rotatory instruments quality of academics by questionnaire and morphologic analysis by electronic scanning microscopy. Materials and Methods: twenty four students in different dental school program periods were asked about use frequency, exchange, period of exchange, storage form, cleaning form, disinfection and sterilization methods, capacity of rotatory instruments self use. For morphologic analysis had been collected diamond burs #1014 (P) and carbide burs #2 (B) (n = 48), with average use time among 6 months and 1 year, which had been analyzed by electronic scanning microscopy observing: corrosion, blade integrity, residues retention, and diamond loss. The data had been tabulated and analyzed of descriptive form. Results: the questionnaire showed: 67% use P and B weekly, 62% never had changed them; 67% store in metallic bur stand, 54% use water, soap and brush for cleaner and 17% do not clean, 50% use alcohol immersion for disinfection, 58% do not sterilized the rotatory instruments , 29% do not agree use P and B in itself. The SEM analyses showed that in B: 42% few corrosion; 79% partial loss of blade integrity; 60% small amount of residue; 79% inadequate for use and, in P: 67% few corrosion; 90 % presence of residue; 48% diamond loss; 83% inadequate for use. Conclusion: it can be conclude that there is not relation of storage form, cleaning form and instruments sterilization with the morphologic rotatory instruments quality. Burs and diamond burs used by academics do not present quality for clinical use.
Keywords
Burs, diamond burs, biosafety, dental residue, scanning electronic microscopy
Referências
1. Borges CF, Magne P, Pfender E, Heberlein J. Dental diamond burs made with a new technology. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82:73-9.
2. Gureckis KM, Burgess JO, Schwartz RS. Cutting effectiveness of diamond instruments subjected to cyclic sterilization methods. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 66:721-6.
3. Heeg P, Roth K, Reichel R, Cogdill P, Bond WW. Decontaminated single-use devices: an oxymoron that may be placing patients at risk for cross-contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:542–9.
4. Hogg NJ, Morrison AD. Resterilization of instruments used in a hospital-based oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005;71:179-82.
5. Leontiou AP, Coogan MM, Aspinall S. Disinfection of dental diamond burs contaminated with hepatitis B virus. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82:332-5.
6. Lewis DL, Arens M, Appleton SS, Nakashima K, Ryu J, Boe RK, et al. Cross-contamination potential with dental equipment. Lancet. 1992;340(8830):1252–4.
7. Lewis DL, Arens M. Resistance of microorganisms to disinfection in dental and medical devices. Nat Med. 1995;1:956–8.
8. Linsuwanont P, Parashos P, Messer HH. Cleaning of rotary nickeltitanium endodontic instruments. Int Endod J. 2004;37:19–28.
9. McDonald RI, Walsh LJ, Savage NW. Analysis of workplace injuries in a dental school environment. Aust Dent J. 1997;42:109-13.
10. Ottl P, Lauer HC. Temperature response in the pulpal chamber during ultrahigh-speed tooth preparation with diamond burs of different grit. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80:12-9.
11. Sagripanti JL, Bonifacino A. Comparative sporicidal effect of liquid chemical germicides on three medical devices contaminated with spores of Bacillus subtilis. Am J Infect Control. 1996;24:364-71.
12. Smith A, Dickson M, Aitken J, Bagg J. Contaminated dental instruments. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51:233–5.
13. von Fraunhofer JA, Smith TA, Marshall KR. The effect of multiple uses of disposable diamond burs on restoration leakage. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:53-7
14. Whitworth CL, Martin MV, Gallagher M, Worthington HV. A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs. Br Dent J. 2004;197:635-43
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email