Skip to main content

Cross-contamination and infection control in intraoral digital imaging: a comprehensive review

Oral Radiology volume 37, pages 180–188 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Dental health care workers are subjected to various infectious disease agents that are present in patients’ saliva and blood which make infection control and universal prevention methods indispensable to the dental practice given that some of these diseases cause loss of work and time for dental staff and patients; some of them cause serious morbidity; and some of them currently have a poor prognosis and no effective treatments. Although dental radiographic procedures are not invasive, and there are no incidents such as injuries caused by dental instruments, they are a potential infection source because of contamination with saliva and blood, and comprehensive infection control procedures also apply to the radiology clinic. In addition, contact with a large number of patients in dental schools and clinics in a short period of time, and the fact that radiographic procedures are performed in the same environment as other dental procedures in dental offices increase the significance of infection control in dental radiology. Major advances in computer technology have enabled digital imaging systems to develop rapidly and to become common in dental practice as an alternative to conventional film-based imaging. The use of digital sensors in dental radiology introduced unique infection control challenges and required the revision and modification of existing infection control techniques. In this review, studies concerning the risk of cross-contamination and challenges of infection control with digital image sensors are comprehensively reviewed and infection control protocols that should be followed in intraoral digital imaging using both direct and indirect systems are thoroughly examined.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Bartoloni JA, Chariton DG, Flint DJ. Infection control practices in dental radiology. Gen Dent. 2003;51:264–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. The use of dental radiographs: update and recommendations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:1304–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chidambaranathan AS, Balasubramanium M. Comprehensive review and comparison of the disinfection techniques currently available in the literature. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:e849–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2003 CDC infection control recommendations for dental health-care settings. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2004;25(1 Suppl):43–48, 50–53.

  5. Silva MAS, Martins MV, Medici Filho E, Moraes LC, Castilho JCM, Jorge AOC. Evaluation of the efficiency of an infection control protocol in dental radiology by means of microbiological analysis. Cienc Odontol Bras. 2004;7:15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  6. MacDonald DS, Waterfield JD. Infection control in digital intraoral radiography: evaluation of microbiological contamination of photostimulable phosphor plates in barrier envelopes. J Can Dent Assoc. 2011;77:b93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Malta CP, Damasceno NN, Ribeiro RA, Silva CS, Devito KL. Microbiological contamination in digital radiography: evaluation at the radiology clinic of an educational institution. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2016;29:239–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freitas CVS, Dias LS, Araújo CS, da Silva VC, Monteiro-Neto V, Souza JIL. Assessment of microbiological contamination of radiographic devices in School of Dentistry. Braz Dent Sci. 2012;15:39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hokett SD, Honey JR, Ruiz F, Baisden MK, Hoen MM. Assessing the effectiveness of direct digital radiography barrier sheaths and finger cots. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131:463–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. An update on radiographic practices: information and recommendations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132:234–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berkhout WE, Sanderink GC, Van der Stelt PF. A comparison of digital and film radiography in Dutch dental practices assessed by questionnaire. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2002;31:93–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Geist JR, Katz JO. Radiation dose-reduction techniques in North American dental schools. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93:496–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Stelt PF. Better imaging: the advantages of digital radiography. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(Suppl):7S–13S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kalathingal SM, Moore S, Kwon S, Schuster GS, Shrout MK, Plummer K. An evaluation of microbiologic contamination on phosphor plates in a dental school. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:279–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Matzen LH, Christensen J, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:566–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wenzel A, Møystad A. Work flow with digital intraoral radiography: a systematic review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68:106–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ludlow JB, Mol A. Digital imaging. In: White SC, Pharoah MJ, editors. Oral radiology. Principles and interpretation. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2014. p. 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Choi JW. Perforation rate of intraoral barriers for direct digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2015;44:20140245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wenzel A, Frandsen E, Hintze H. Patient discomfort and cross-infection control in bitewing examination with a storage phosphor plate and a CCD-based sensor. J Dent. 1999;27:243–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Parks ET, Williamson GF. Digital radiography: an overview. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2002;3:23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Negron W, Mauriello SM, Peterson CA, Arnold R. Cross-contamination of the PSP sensor in a preclinical setting. J Dent Hyg. 2005;79:8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van der Stelt PF. Filmless imaging: the uses of digital radiography in dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:1379–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99:485–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hunter A, Kalathingal S, Shrout M, Plummer K, Looney S. The effectiveness of a pre-procedural mouthrinse in reducing bacteria on radiographic phosphor plates. Imaging Sci Dent. 2014;44:149–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hubar JS, Gardiner DM. Infection control procedures used in conjunction with computed dental radiography. Int J Comput Dent. 2000;3:259–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Koch S, Wagner IV, Schneider W. Effective and quality-controlled use of digital radiography in dental practice. Int J Comput Dent. 2000;3:107–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kalathingal S, Youngpeter A, Minton J, Shrout M, Dickinson D, Plummer K, et al. An evaluation of microbiologic contamination on a phosphor plate system: is weekly gas sterilization enough? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109:457–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. de Souza TM, de Castro RD, de Vasconcelos LC, Pontual AD, de Moraes Ramos Perez FM, Pontual ML. Microbial contamination in intraoral phosphor storage plates: the dilemma. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:301–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kohn WG, Collins AS, Cleveland JL, Harte JA, Eklund KJ, Malvitz DM, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings-2003. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003;52(RR-17):1–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wenzel A, Kornum F, Knudsen M, Lau EF. Antimicrobial efficiency of ethanol and 2-propanol alcohols used on contaminated storage phosphor plates and impact on durability of the plate. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2013;42:20120353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Peker I, Peker E, Basman A, Akca G, Odabas ME, Haciosmanoglu N, et al. A pilot study of the effects of a vacuum sealing barrier method for photostimulable phosphor plates regarding plate damage and prevention of microbiologic cross-contamination. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2018;126:283–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Charuakkra A, Prapayasatok S, Janhom A, Verochana K, Mahasantipiya P. Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2017;46:20160253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuperstein AS. Defective plastic infection-control barriers and faulty technique may cause PSP plate contamination used in digital intraoral radiography. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012;12(3 Suppl):46–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hubar JS, Oeschger MP. Optimizing efficiency of radiograph disinfection. Gen Dent. 1995;43:360–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fernandes LMPSR, Zapata RO, Rubira-Bullen IRF, Capelozza ALA. Microbiologic cross contamination and infection control in intraoral conventional and digital radiology. RGO Rev Gaúcha Odontol. 2013;61:609–14.

    Google Scholar 

  36. da Cunha Mendes GC, da Silva Brandão TR, Miranda Silva CL. Ethylene oxide potential toxicity. Expert Rev Med Dev. 2008;5:323–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Peterson CA, Mauriello SM, Arnold RR, Webster-Cyrique J. Infection control for a digital imaging sensor. J Dent Res. 2002;81(Special Issue A):A-111.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Basibuyuk Mah. Basibuyuk Yolu Sok. No: 9/3, Basibuyuk, 34854, Maltepe/Istanbul, Turkey

    Birsay Gumru & Ender Idman

  2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Basibuyuk Mah. Basibuyuk Yolu Sok. No: 9/3, Basibuyuk, 34854, Maltepe/Istanbul, Turkey

    Bilge Tarcin

Authors
  1. Birsay Gumru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bilge Tarcin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ender Idman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birsay Gumru.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Birsay Gumru, Bilge Tarcin, and Ender Idman declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gumru, B., Tarcin, B. & Idman, E. Cross-contamination and infection control in intraoral digital imaging: a comprehensive review. Oral Radiol 37, 180–188 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00452-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00452-z

Keywords

  • Cross-infection
  • Dentistry
  • Digital radiology
  • Imaging receptor
  • Infection control