Abstract
Aim
To compare the effectiveness of different decontamination methods on tried-in preformed metal crowns (PMCs).
Methods
Sixty unused PMCs and 90 tried-in PMCs from patients were assessed for contamination after culturing for 24 h on liquid media, solid media and differential media for identification of Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli. Subsequently, these PMCs were divided equally into the following six groups: autoclave (121 °C, 15 psi for 15 min), 5% sodium hypochlorite (5 min), 5% glutaraldehyde (5 min), 70% isopropyl alcohol (1 min) and normal saline (5 min). The contamination was reassessed, and the Log10 counts were compared to the pre-decontamination levels using one way ANOVA and paired t-test at a significance level of p < 0.05.
Results
The mean percentage reduction in colony counts was significantly more in the autoclave group compared to glutaraldehyde or sodium hypochlorite groups, glass bead, isopropyl alcohol, and normal saline in this decreasing order.
Conclusions
PMCs supplied by the manufacturer were found to be sterile and can be used directly on patients. The autoclave was the best method of sterilisation, although it did not eliminate the microbes 100%; followed by 5% glutaraldehyde and 5% sodium hypochlorite.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
British Dental Association (2018). Advice sheet: infection control in dentistry. http://www.virox.com/files_docs/content/pdf/msds/bda-cross-infection.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2018. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/71evBTRcf).
Burke FJ, Coulter WA, Cheung SW, Palenik CJ. Autoclave performance and practitioner knowledge of autoclave use: a survey of selected UK practices. Quintessence Int. 1998;29(4):231–8.
Cakan U, Delilbasi C, Er S, Kivanc M. Is it safe to reuse dental implant healing abutments sterilized and serviced by dealers of dental implant manufacturers? An in vitro sterility analysis. Implant Dent. 2015;24(2):174–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000198.
Carvalho MR, dos Santos da Silva MA, de Sousa Brito CA, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial activity between chemical disinfectants on contaminated orthodontic pliers. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015;16(8):619–23.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2018). Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/rational-approach.html. Accessed 12 Apr 2018. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/74QZAePWJ).
Chan HWA, Tan KH, Dashper SG, Reynolds EC, Parashos P. Sterilization of rotary NiTi instruments within endodontic sponges. Int Endod J 2016;49(9):850–57.
El Shehaby FA. Current infection control measures and decontamination pattern of reused stainless steel crowns and bands among a sample of Egyptian dentists. Cairo Dent J. 2008;24:403–14.
El-Wassefy N, El-Fallal A, Taha M. Effect of different sterilization modes on the surface morphology, ion release, and bone reaction of retrieved micro-implants. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(1):39–47. https://doi.org/10.2319/012014-56.1.
Engel RJ. Chrome steel as used in children’s dentistry. Chron Omaha Dist Dent Soc. 1950;13:255–8.
Farhin K, Abhinav S, Thejokrishna P, Sajjad M. Stainless steel crowns reuse and decontamination techniques: a survey among Indian pediatric dentists. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2013;31:265–9.
Fulford MR, Ireland AJ, Main BG. Decontamination of tried-in orthodontic molar bands. Eur J Orthod. 2003;25(6):621–2.
Gnau HL, Goodell GG, Imamura GM. Rapid chairside sterilization of endodontic files using 6% sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 2009;35(9):1253–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.05.032.
Humphrey WP. Use of chrome steel in children’s dentistry. Dent Surv. 1950;26:945–9.
Inger M, Bennani V, Farella M, Bennani F, Cannon RD. Efficacy of air/water syringe tip sterilization. Aust Dent J. 2014;59(1):87–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12146(Epub 2014 Feb 4).
Kiran DPS, Patel MC, Bhatt R, Bhatt K. Evaluation of preformed stainless steel Crown’s crazing by various sterilization methods of steam autoclave: a pilot study. Adv Hum Biol. 2015;5(1):14–7.
Kumar KV, Kiran Kumar KS, Supreetha S, et al. Pathological evaluation for sterilization of routinely used prosthodontic and endodontic instruments. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5(3):232–6. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.159962.
Morrison A, Conrod S. Dental burs and endodontic files: are routine sterilization procedures effective? J Can Dent Assoc. 2009;75(1):39.
Omidkhoda M, Rashed R, Bagheri Z, Ghazvini K, Shafaee H. Comparison of three different sterilization and disinfection methods on orthodontic markers. J Orthod Sci. 2016;5(1):14–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.176653.
Pinto FM, Bruna CQ, Camargo TC, et al. The practice of disinfection of high-speed handpieces with 70% w/v alcohol: an evaluation. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(1):e19–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.08.004(Epub 2016 Oct 18).
Sheth NC, Rathod YV, Shenoi PR, et al. Evaluation of new technique of sterilization using biological indicator. J Conserv Dent JCD. 2017;20(5):346–50. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_253_16.
Venkatasubramanian R, Jayanthi, Das UM, Bhatnagar S. Comparison of the effectiveness of sterilizing endodontic files by 4 different methods: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2010;28:2–5.
von Woedtke T, Kramer A. The limits of sterility assurance. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip. 2008;3(3):Doc19.
Whitworth CL, Martin MV, Gallagher M, Worthington HV. A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs. Br Dent J. 2004;197(10):635–40 (discussion 623).
Funding
The study was not funded by any grants or external funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The study was approved by Institution Review board of Sudha Rustagi College of Dental Sciences and Research, Faridabad.
Conflict of interest
The authors deny any conflicts of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was taken from all the participants of the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Darshan, V., Indushekar, K.R., Saraf, B.G. et al. A comparison of decontamination methods of tried-in preformed metal crowns: an in-vivo study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 20, 537–544 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-00414-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-00414-4