Disinfection of alginate and addition silicon rubber-based impression materials

Comparative analysis of 1 % sodium hypochlorite and 2 % glutaraldehyde
original article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Summary

The efficacy of 1 % sodium hypochlorite and 2 % glutaraldehyde disinfectant sprays on impression materials (alginate and addition silicone rubber-based impression material) was tested qualitatively and quantitatively for the presence of microflora on untreated (control group) and disinfected impression surfaces after 48 h of incubation using nutrient agar culture medium. Impressions were made of 60 dentulous volunteers aged 20–50 years who were apparently free from medical problems. The colony-forming units (cfu) were counted and compared with the control group. The control group showed growth of viridians streptococci, Streptococcus pneumonia, diphtheroids, and Neisseria. The alginate control group showed more microflora compared with the silicone impression surface of both the control group and the study group. Use of 1 % sodium hypochlorite yielded better results than did 2 % glutaraldehyde.

Keywords

Disinfection Microflora Dental impression Contamination Cross-infection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

T. Al-Enazi and A. Naik declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 [5]. Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Clare C. Cross contamination control in prosthodontic practice. Int J Prosthodont. 1991;4:337–44.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Runnells RR, Powell GL. Managing infection control, hazards communications, and infection waste disposal. Dent Clin North Am. 1991;35:299–308.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McNeill MR, Coulter WA. Disinfection of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions – a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont. 1992;5(6):563–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Council on Dental Therapeutics, Council on Prosthetic Services and Dental Laboratory Relations. Guidelines for infection control in dental office and commercial dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985;100:969–72.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glenwright HD, Shovelton DS. The prevention of cross-infection. Progress in the West Midlands. Br Dent J. 1989 Feb 25;166(4):125–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergman B. Disinfection of prosthodontic impression materials: a literature review. Int J Prosthodont. 1989;2:537–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rowe AH, Forrest JO. Probabilty of contamination and a method of disinfection. Br Dent J. 1978;145:184–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wakefield CW. Laboratory contamination of dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;65:143–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jennings KJ, Samranayake LP. The persistence of microorganism on impression materials following disinfection. Int J Prosthodont. 1991;4(4):382–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leung RL, Schonfeld SC. Gypsum casts as a potential source of microbial cross contamination. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:210–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerhardt DE, Williams HN. Factors affecting the stability of sodium hypochlorite solutions used to disinfect dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 1991;22:587–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gurayat Dental CenterGurayatKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations