Skip to main content
Download PDF

Cross-transmission in the Dental Office: Does This Make You Ill?

Current Oral Health Reports volume 5, pages 221–228 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recently, numerous scientific publications were published which shed new light on the possible risks of infection for dental healthcare workers and their patients. This review aimed to provide the latest insights in the relative risks of transmission of (pathogenic) micro-organisms in the dental office.

Recent Findings

Of all different routes of micro-organism transmission during or immediately after dental treatment (via direct contact/via blood-blood contact/via dental unit water and aerosols), evidence of transmission is available. However, the recent results put the risks in perspective; infections related to the dental office are most likely when infection control measures are not followed meticulously.

Summary

The risk for transmission of pathogens in a dental office resulting in an infectious disease is still unknown; it seems to be limited in developed countries but it cannot be considered negligible. Therefore, maintaining high standards of infection preventive measures is of high importance for dental healthcare workers to avoid infectious diseases due to cross-contamination.

Introduction

Most of the scientific publications in medicine investigate how to cure patients from diseases and this also applies for dentistry. Prevention of a disease is in most cases more cost effective than curing the disease [1]. For health care-associated infections, it has been described that the burden for the patient and his/her surroundings can also be substantial [2]. Prevention of disease becomes more and more important in an era where increased antibiotic resistance results in a rise in untreatable infections [3].

Multiple factors are involved before transmission results in an infectious disease. The problem when studying cross-transmission is that it occurs everywhere, though transmission of pathogenic micro-organisms does not necessarily result in an infectious disease of the host. Figure 1 visualises the three main factors responsible for infection risk. Most important is the virulence of the micro-organism, or its pathogenicity class. It is unlikely that class 1 micro-organisms (which are not harmful for man, plant or animal) will cause an infectious disease. Likewise, a micro-organism will less likely cause an infection when not (frequently) in contact with a susceptible host or when the infectious dose of a micro-organism is not reached due to the type of treatment [4]. Therefore, the three factors risk of transmission (x-axis), micro-organisms virulence (y-axis) and exposure frequency (z-axis) should be multiplied in order to obtain a value that represents a relative infection risk [4]. The factors that are involved in this process can either increase or decrease the infection risk and are depicted in the sphere drawn in Fig. 1 with examples of these factors from dentistry presented around the sphere.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Visualisation of the three main factors responsible for infection risk, visualised on three axes. Note that the values of these axes are increasing to the centre. To obtain a relative infection risk, these three factors must be multiplied, resulting in either a more serious infection risk (red colour of the sphere), a moderate infection risk (blue colour) of negligible infection risk (green colour). On the edges of the sphere, the three main factors that determine whether transmission of a pathogen results in disease are shown. Outside the sphere examples are depicted of the involved factors in dentistry

Full size image

Both patients and dental health care professionals (DHCP) can serve as a host for micro-organisms; both patients and DHCP can serve as a reservoir for pathogenic micro-organisms and both can become infected because of their involvement in dental treatments. Transmission of micro-organisms in the dental office may occur by direct contact (including blood-blood contact) or by inhalation/ingestion of the micro-organisms (in (bio-)aerosols) from dental unit water. Recent reports on these different routes of transmission shed new light on the possible risks for DHCP as well as for patients receiving dental treatment. This review aims to give the latest insights in the relative risks of transmission of (pathogenic) micro-organisms in the dental office.

Transmission by Direct Contact

Cross-transmission of micro-organisms in dental offices via direct contact is an almost unavoidable problem; it can occur via hands, improper sterilised instruments or needle stick accidents. The magnitude of this type of cross-transmission is difficult to estimate. Transmission of non-pathogenic micro-organisms will not result in medical problems since it will not result in an infectious disease (Fig. 1). Recent reports on cross-transmission in healthcare are therefore focusing on specific pathogenic micro-organisms that are easily identified and recognised because of their effect on the host.

One of these well-studied micro-organisms is MRSA, the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is responsible for a substantial amount of health care-associated infections which are difficult to treat [5•]. Transmission of MRSA can occur by direct or indirect contact. It has been recently reported that the transmission dynamics of MRSA within a hospital environment are complex and that the likelihood of contamination with MRSA is possibly associated with the period of time patients stay in the healthcare facility [6]. In dentistry, where the contact time between patients and staff is relatively short, the transmission of MRSA is expected to be less complex.

MRSA is most frequently isolated in both the nose and the oral cavity [7,8,9,10]. Indeed, several studies in dentistry reported that MRSA is found more often in the nose or on hands of dental students compared to a control group without patient-contact, although contradicting findings have been reported [11,12,13,14,15]. The differences in prevalence may be due to differences between countries, e.g., in applying (hand)hygiene measures. These studies indicate that DHCP are more or less involved in MRSA transmission. The frequency of transmission via DHCP in the dental office is probably low and the main “porte de sortie” is most likely the patient. However, even if DHCP will become colonised by MRSA, the chances for further transmission are limited. For this to occur, the MRSA has to be transmitted to the next patient via air or direct contact. Transmission is possibly accompanied or amplified by infected surfaces, since surfaces have been reported to be frequently colonised by MRSA [13, 16,17,18]. Obviously, infection control measures will reduce the possibility for transmission of MRSA. Since (transmission of) MRSA is well-studied in health care, the results from the above named studies are assumed to be indicative for other micro-organisms such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, norovirus and Candida albicans for which transmission via direct contact is possible (Table 1).

Table 1 Some relevant infectious micro-organisms in a dental office sorted by their major transmission route
Full size table

We have to realise that transmission is not synonym to infection. After transmission of a micro-organism to a host, the host will not become ill in most cases. Therefore, the colonisation of DHCP by MRSA is usually not noticed and will hence not result in disease or treatment. When conventional infection control measures are used (e.g. chemical or thermal disinfection, use of personal protective equipment), transmission of MRSA will be minimised. This cleaning and disinfection have to be performed with sufficient care since it has been reported that disinfection or removal of the biofilm is negatively affected when MRSA is present in a biofilm on (dry) surfaces [19,20,21,22]. Those dry surface biofilms can be transferred to the patient through the hands of the DHCP [23]. Hence, when the surrounding surfaces in a dental office are not sufficiently cleaned and disinfected, transfer of pathogens like MRSA is possible to occur in the dental office.

Another example of possible transmission via direct contact is the use of hollow instruments in dentistry. Several studies have been performed on the efficacy of the methods to clean and disinfect hollow instruments such as airotors and (high speed) handpieces, which is a recognised challenge in dentistry [24]. The presence of bacteria, fungi and viruses on and inside dental hollow instruments has been determined in a study by Andersen et al. [25]. Cleaning these handpieces using a tissue with ethanol (70%) is insufficient to eradicate microbial contamination [26]. In a commentary to this paper, it was stated that not only the exterior, but also the interior of these instruments should be cleaned and disinfected properly, since hollow instruments contain contamination of both the patient and the water/air supply [27]. Moreover, sufficient guidelines about how to decontaminate handpieces are available, but the majority of the DHCP is unaware of these guidelines [28].

The previously described studies indicate that the possibility for cross-transmission through dental equipment exists, although undeniable proof is difficult to obtain, probably due to incomplete reporting. One micro-organism of which transmission has been established in an oral surgery practice is hepatitis C virus (HCV). Molecular typing methods have been used to study the possible transmission of HCV in over 4000 patients after they visited a dental office [29, 30]. In total, 89 patients were found to be positive for HCV, but only two patients had identical strains of HCV which indicates transmission. The route of transmission in this case was the possible reuse of a contaminated vial during the application of intravenous drugs. Despite this mistake, the infection control measures in this particular oral surgery practice were inadequate [30, 31].

Another possible case of direct transmission via dental instruments was reported by newspapers from the UK, where a dentist did not clean the equipment properly. More than four and a half thousand patients were tested for HCV of which five patients were diagnosed with HCV [32]. No follow-up study has been published in scientific journals, so no clarity exists if these cases are connected.

These data suggest that transmission of pathogens between patients and dental equipment and vice versa does exist, in which the frequency of risk-contact will determine whether this contact will result in actual disease. But this will, as far as we know now, rarely cause infectious diseases.

Transmission by Blood-Blood Contact

In the previous paragraph, it is discussed that the risks of insufficient cleaning and disinfection of instruments on the transmission of pathogens are not negligible. However, the highest risks of transmission in the dental office exist when pathogens are transported directly from blood (e.g., of the patient) to blood (e.g., of the DHCP). These blood exposure accidents (BEAs) are reported throughout the medical world, but especially within dentistry, there is a high risk for BEAs. DHCP frequently work with sharp instruments and needles while simultaneously they do not always have direct sight onto the working area or their own fingers. The risk of transmission of blood-borne pathogens is therefore a relevant occupational health risk [33].

A clear demonstration of this health risk is the elevated prevalence of seropositive hepatitis B individuals amongst DHCP. In the past, HBV infection was a relatively common occupational disease for DHCPs, but since vaccination against HBV has become obligatory in many countries for the dental profession, its prevalence dropped dramatically [34]. However, not all DHCPs are yet vaccinated against HBV and BEAs are worldwide responsible for 37–39% of the hepatitis B infections [35]. In an overview concerning transmission of blood-borne pathogens in the USA, Cleveland et al. found only three reports on cross-infection of HBV and HCV in the dental health care setting [36••]. Two reports dealt about an isolated transmission between patients and one study described transmission of HBV to three patients and two DHCPs. In all three cases, multiple deficiencies in infection control measures were observed while concurrently the occurrence of a BEA could not be excluded for these cases [30, 36••, 37, 38]. A review of studies which were performed in the Middle East and Northern Africa described that health care-related HCV transmission is responsible for over 50% of the HCV cases, although transmission in the dental surgery occurs in less than 5% of the reported cases [39].

After a BEA, active and appropriate post-accident prevention should be performed. Professional help is important to determine which measures have to be taken in order to prevent infection. It has been calculated that the actions after needle stick injuries are costly and cumbersome for the health care workers and the society [35]. A recent study from Pakistan suggested to develop educational programs and to install a health department managing BEAs to lower the threshold for DHCP of reporting accidents to fight present underreporting of BEAs [33]. In a study performed in The Netherlands, it was found that 16% of the BEAs reported to a professional counselling centre were considered high-risk incidents with a risk for the transmission of HBV as well as HCV and HIV, for what post-accident measures had to be taken [40]. In this study, it was reported that the vaccination rate for HBV of Dutch dentists was 98% and that 32% of the dentists who responded to the questionnaire reported to have at least 1 BEA in the previous year. This is a relatively high number compared to the medical environment and may be due to the frequent administration of local anaesthesia by dentists.

Medical and dental hospitals often have their own unit that manages BEAs. DHCP will only recognise the need for these units, when they have a sufficient level of knowledge about BEAs. Several studies, however, report that knowledge of both DHCP and students with respect to BEAs is insufficient [41,42,43,44,45]. Nevertheless, DHCP tend to estimate the risk level of a BEA themselves without professional counselling. It is therefore expected that the number of BEAs is much higher than the reported number and that the transmission of blood-borne pathogens between patient and DHCP will occur more frequently than reported. Since the number of infections in DHCP is not increased alarmingly, it is to be expected that the risk for infection is low. Consequently, the risk for a patient to be infected after a BEA is even much lower, especially when the DHCP is applying infection prevention measures in a correct way. Therefore, it is concluded that the risk for transmission of blood-borne pathogens in the dental office resulting in an infection is present, but acceptably low. Introduction of safety engineered devices or improved injection techniques to prevent BEAs have been recommended, but a clinical decrease in number of BEAs has not been reported yet [35, 46, 47].

Transmission by Dental Unit Water and Aerosols

A third way of transmission of micro-organisms in the dental office is through the water of the dental unit water lines (DUWLs). The water from the DUWLs is used during treatments to cool the equipment, making this water essential for a safe dental treatment. Simultaneously, this cooling water is a possible source of (pathogenic) micro-organisms. Contamination of the water can occur from water backfiring from the patients’ side into the DUWLs as well as from the micro-organisms from the incoming water, with the latter being the main cause of contamination of the DUWLs [48].

Soon after the first use of the DUWLs [49], a multispecies biofilm is formed on the inside of the water lines. The moist environment of the DUWL, in combination with room temperature, the used fabrics of the DUWLs (polymers like polyurethane or polyvinyl chloride or silicone rubber tubing) and the relatively high surface for adherence form an ideal environment for biofilms to develop.

Both DHCP and patients are exposed to (contaminated) water from the DUWL directly (splatters/drinking) or indirectly (via aerosols through the air, produced by dental hand pieces) [50]. Aerosols are small liquid droplets (or solid particles) which float in the air. Aerosols and spatters can contain micro-organisms. These airborne micro-organisms can be spread in the dental office by ‘normal’ activities like talking, coughing and sneezing, but also by using dental instruments (e.g. airotors, ultrasonic instruments). Micro-organisms spread by aerosols can cause diseases like influenza, the common cold, but also respiratory diseases such as tuberculosis and legionnaire’s disease. Both the treatment room and the DHCP will become contaminated with micro-organisms from the DUWL [51,52,53]. Contamination due to aerosols or spatters is dependent of the correct application of the (high-volume) evacuator and the type of treatment [54].

When the DUWL water abundantly exceeds the microbiological quality requirements, this results in direct or indirect transmission of pathogens and may result in disease of susceptible hosts (Fig. 1). The most reported pathogens from contaminated water are Legionella species and Pseudomonas species, but also opportunistic genera such as Propioniumbacterium, Mycobacterium and Stenotrophomonas species are detected in the DUWL [55] (Table 1). Pseudomonas aeruginosa is frequently studied in waterlines because of its association with disease in susceptible hosts (i.e. cystic fibrosis). These pathogens are easily transmitted and originate from the main water tubing. Also, other species, such as Achromobacter species and mycobacteria, have been associated with infections from waterlines [49, 56,57,58,59,60,61,62]. Moreover, the presence of Gram-negative bacteria in the DUWLs can lead to the production of endotoxins (LPS) in the water and the air of a dental office [50, 63, 64].

Legionella pneumophila needs more attention since it is known to be able to cause Legionnaires’ disease, although it can also lead to Pontiac fever, an upper respiratory infection which often remains undiagnosed. Only inhalation of aerosols and choking or aspiration of Legionella-contaminated water can lead to infection. The presence of other bacteria in a biofilm does positively influence the survival of L. pneumophila [65]. But also the presence of amoeba is positively associated with Legionella because this bacterium can grow inside amoeba [66,67,68,69]. Many studies are focussing on the risks of having L. pneumophila in the water, but also non-pneumophila species of Legionella, like Legionella anisa, have been associated with infections [70, 71].

In dentistry, two cases of legionellosis have been reported recently [72, 73]. However, despite the fact that two people died from a Legionella-pneumonia after a dental treatment, it still is discussed whether (contaminated) DUWLs were the source of the Legionella, or that this bacterium had a different origin (Petti, 2016, Petti 2017a, Petti 2017b, Petti & Vitali, 2017). In either case, transmission of this bacterium did occur in the dental office.

When Legionella is present in DUWLs, it is to be expected that DHCP will develop antibodies against this bacterium in time. Several studies indicated that elevated levels of antibodies against Legionella occur in DHCP, but other studies contradict these results [74,75,76]. A meta-analysis by Petti and Vitali showed that the increased prevalence of anti-Legionella antibodies is highly dependent on the location of the study [77••]. Because there are too few studies where concentrations of Legionella in DUWL and antibodies against these bacteria have been studied simultaneously, this so called “chicken and egg dispute” cannot be solved yet [77••, 78,79,80]. Currently, no scientific evidence exists supporting an overall high occupational risk of Legionella infection. However, the above discussed studies together strongly indicate that transmission of pathogens from water to either patient or DHCP does occur, with a low risk for infection [81].

Discussion

Cross-transmission of micro-organisms occurs frequently within the dental office. That is through direct and indirect contact between patients, DHCP and the outflow of DUWL. Based on the current research, this does not frequently result in infections in the patient or DHCP. Therefore, the actual risk for cross-infection is low, as far as we know from studies in developed countries. There is ample evidence that the same holds true for developing countries, where the hygiene level is much lower. Furthermore, with an ageing population in the developed countries, there will be more vulnerable patients in the dental office. Consequently, the likelihood that a cross-transmission will result in an infection will increase substantially.

Most studies describing cross-transmission in the dental office have been performed using bacteria as study target. It is suspected that DUWL contain many viruses (or phages). However, data on cross-infection from viruses such as measles virus are completely lacking, probably due to the limited available methods for molecular typing of viruses. It can be argued that transmission of viruses occurs with more ease and therefore more often compared to bacteria because of their smaller size. Due to the lack of studies on the relationship between cross-transmission and infection, especially focussing on viruses, the effect of this cross-transmission is not known.

Considering the research reports described in the current review, transmission resulting in infection cannot be excluded in the dental office. Consequently, maintaining a high standard of infection preventive measures must stay a main concern for DHCP, in order to keep themselves and their patients as healthy as possible. With this in mind, it is worrying that several studies conclude that the knowledge of DHCP about cross-transmission, cross-infection and how to prevent them is insufficient [41,42,43,44,45, 82, 83]. This should be kept in mind when planning post-graduate training programs and education programs of DHCP at all levels.

Conclusion

The risk for transmission of pathogens in a dental office is still unknown but cannot be considered negligible. Usually, patients and DHCP do not develop infectious diseases after transmission. Due to increasing life expectancy of patients, improvement of health care causing more diseases to become chronic and the increasing virulence of micro-organisms (resistance), it is expected that in the future, transmission of pathogens results more frequently in development of infectious diseases. Therefore, infection control in the dental office should be considered as a mature and essential topic of which DHCP should be fully informed.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Fast SM, Gonzalez MC, Markuzon N. Cost-effective control of infectious disease outbreaks accounting for societal reaction. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Currie K, Melone L, Stewart S, King C, Holopainen A, Clark AM, et al. Understanding the patient experience of health care–associated infection: a qualitative systematic review. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46:936–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones CA, Davis JS, Looke DF. Death from an untreatable infection may signal the start of the post-antibiotic era. Med J Aust. 2017;206(7):292–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Alphen W. Risico-iventarisatie van biologische agentia 2014. Available from: https://www.arbeidsveiligheid.net/veiligheidsartikelen/risico-inventarisatie-van-microbiologische-agentia.

  5. • Boswihi SS, Udo EE. Methicillin-resistan Staphylococcus auteus: an update on the epidemiology, treatment options and infection control. Curr Med Res Pract. 2018;8(7) This data on MRSA is an indication that we could face more problems in future related to MRSA and that antibiotic stewardship will be of increasing importance.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chow A, Lim VW, Khan A, Pettigrew K, Lye DCB, Kanagasabai K, et al. MRSA transmission dynamics among interconnected acute, intermediate-term, and long-term healthcare facilities in Singapore. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(suppl_2):S76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis N, Parmar N, Hussain Z, Baker G, Green I, Howlett J, et al. Colonisation of dentures by Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA in out-patient and in-patient populations. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2015;34(9):1823–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Koukos G, Sakellari D, Arsenakis M, Tsalikis L, Slini T, Konstantinidis A. Prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the oral cavity. Arch Oral Biol. 2015;60(9):1410–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cavalcante FS, Pinheiro MV, Ferreira DC, Alvarenga C, Guimaraes ACF, Nouer SA, et al. Characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients on admission to a teaching hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(11):1190–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Budri PE, Shore AC, Coleman DC, Kinnevey PM, Humpreys H, Fitzgerald-Hughes D. Observational cross-sectional study of nasal staphylococcal species of medical students of diverse geographical origin, prior to healthcare exposure: prevalence of SCCmec, fusC, fusB and the arginine catabolite mobile element (ACME) in the absence of selective antibiotic pressure. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e020391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roberts MC, Soge OO, Horst JA, Ly KA, Milgrom P. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from dental school clinic surfaces and students. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(8):628–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Martinez-Ruiz FJ, Carrillo-Espindola TY, Bustos-Martinez J, Hamdan-Partida A, Sanchez-Perez L, Acosta-Gio AE. Higher prevalence of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among dental students. J Hosp Infect. 2014;86(3):216–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Petti S, Kakisina N, Volgenant CM, Messano GA, Barbato E, Passariello C, et al. Low methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage rate among Italian dental students. Am J Infect Control. 2015;43(12):e89–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Petti S. NASAL MRSA carriage rates. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(10):774–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Baek YS, Baek SH, Yoo YJ. Higher nasal carriage rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among dental students who have clinical experience. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(5):348–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Petti S, Polimeni A. Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus transmission in the dental healthcare setting: a narrative review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(11):1109–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Vickery K, Deva A, Jacombs A, Allan J, Valente P, Gosbell IB. Presence of biofilm containing viable multiresistant organisms despite terminal cleaning on clinical surfaces in an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect. 2012;80(1):52–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Walia SS, Manchanda A, Narang RS, N A, Singh B, Kahlon SS. Cellular telephone as reservoir of bacterial contamination: myth or fact. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(1):50–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Almatroudi A, Hu H, Deva A, Gosbell IB, Jacombs A, Jensen SO, et al. A new dry-surface biofilm model: an essential tool for efficacy testing of hospital surface decontamination procedures. J Microbiol Methods. 2015;117:171–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Almatroudi A, Gosbell IB, Hu H, Jensen SO, Espedido BA, Tahir S, et al. Staphylococcus aureus dry-surface biofilms are not killed by sodium hypochlorite: implications for infection control. J Hosp Infect. 2016;93(3):263–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Almatroudi A, Tahir S, Hu H, Chowdhury D, Gosbell IB, Jensen SO, et al. Staphylococcus aureus dry-surface biofilms are more resistant to heat treatment than traditional hydrated biofilms. J Hosp Infect. 2018;98(2):161–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Otter JA, Vickery K, Walker JT, deLancey Pulcini E, Stoodley P, Goldenberg SD, et al. Surface-attached cells, biofilms and biocide susceptibility: implications for hospital cleaning and disinfection. J Hosp Infect. 2015;89(1):16–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chowdhary D, Tahir S, Legge M, Hu H, Prvan T, Johani K, et al. Transfer of dry surface biofilm in healthcare environment: the role of healthcare worker's hands as vehicles. J Hosp Infect. 2018.

  24. Deshpande A, Smith GW, Smith AJ. Biofouling of surgical power tools during routine use. J Hosp Infect. 2015;90(3):179–85.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Andersen HK, Fiehn NE, Larsen T. Effect of steam sterilization inside the turbine chambers of dental turbines. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;87(2):184–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pinto FM, Bruna CQ, Camargo TC, Marques M, Silva CB, Sasagawa SM, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Acosta-Gio E, Bednarsh H, Cuny E, Eklund K, Mills S, Risk D. Sterilization of dental handpieces. Am J Infect Control. 2017;45(8):937–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Osegueda-Espinosa AA, Sanchez-Perez L, Perea-Perez B, Labajo-Gonzalez E, Acosta-Gio AE. Dentists survey on adverse events during their clinical training. J Patient Saf. 2017:1.

  29. Weaver JM. Confirmed transmission of hepatitis C in an oral surgery office. Anesth Prog. 2014;61(3):93–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bradley KK. Dental Healthcare-Associated Transmission of Hepatitis C: Final Report of Public Health Investigation and Response. Tulsa 2016. Available from: www.ok.gov/health2/documents/Dental%20Healthcare_Final%20Report_2_17_15.pdf.

  31. Hanley KJ. Take a lesson from Tulsa. N Y State Dent J. 2013;79(4):4–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. L P. Five former patients of 'dirty' dentist test positive for HEPATITIS following claims he ignored infection control rules. Mail Online 2015 17 March 2015.

  33. Pervaiz M, Gilbert R, Ali N. The prevalence and underreporting of Needlestick injuries among dental healthcare Workers in Pakistan: a systematic review. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:9609038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cleveland JL, Siew C, Lockwood SA, Gruninger SE, Gooch BF, Shapiro CN. Hepatitis B vaccination and infection among U.S. dentists, 1983-1992. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996;127(9):1385–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cooke CE, Stephens JM. Clinical, economic, and humanistic burden of needlestick injuries in healthcare workers. Med Devices (Auckl). 2017;10:225–35.

    Google Scholar 

  36. •• Cleveland JL, Gray SK, Harte JA, Robison VA, Moorman AC, Gooch BF. Transmission of blood-borne pathogens in US dental health care settings: 2016 update. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147(9):729–38 This publication lists systematically the reports concerning transmission of blood borne pathogens in dentistry in the United States of America during 12 years.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Redd JT, Baumbach J, Kohn W, Nainan O, Khristova M, Williams I. Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis B virus associated with oral surgery. J Infect Dis. 2007;195(9):1311–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Radcliffe RA, Bixler D, Moorman A, Hogan VA, Greenfield VS, Gaviria DM, et al. Hepatitis B virus transmissions associated with a portable dental clinic, West Virginia, 2009. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(10):1110–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mahmud S, Kouyoumjian SP, Al Kanaani Z, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ. Individual-level key associations and modes of exposure for hepatitis C virus infection in the Middle East and North Africa: a systematic synthesis. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(7):452–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. van Wijk PT, Meiberg AE, Bruers JJ, Groenewold MH, van Raalten AL, Dam BA, et al. The risk of blood exposure incidents in dental practices in the Netherlands. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012;40(6):567–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Winchester SA, Tomkins S, Cliffe S, Batty L, Ncube F, Zuckerman M. Healthcare workers' perceptions of occupational exposure to blood-borne viruses and reporting barriers: a questionnaire-based study. J Hosp Infect. 2012;82(1):36–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Garland KV. A survey of United States dental hygienists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices with infection control guidelines. J Dent Hyg. 2013;87(3):140–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wu L, Yin YL, Song JL, Chen Y, Wu YF, Zhao L. Knowledge, attitudes and practices surrounding occupational blood-borne pathogen exposure amongst students in two Chinese dental schools. Eur J Dent Educ. 2016;20(4):206–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoo YJ, Kwak EJ, Jeong KM, Baek SH, Baek YS. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection control and nasal MRSA carriage rate among dental health-care professionals. Int Dent J. 2018;68:359–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hbibi A, Kasouati J, Charof R, Chaouir S, El Harti K. Evaluation of the knowledge and attitudes of dental students toward occupational blood exposure accidents at the end of the dental training program. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dent. 2018;8(1):77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schuurmans J, Lutgens SP, Groen L, Schneeberger PM. Do safety engineered devices reduce needlestick injuries? J Hosp Infect. 2018;100:99–104.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Fa BA, Cuny E. Preliminary evidence supports modification of retraction technique to prevent Needlestick injuries. Anesth Prog. 2016;63(4):192–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lewis DL, Arens M, Suzuki M, Appleton SS, Nakashima K, Ryu J, et al. Cross-contamination potential with dental equipment. Lancet. 1992;340(8830):1252–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Barbeau J, Tanguay R, Faucher E, Avezard C, Trudel L, Cote L, et al. Multiparametric analysis of waterline contamination in dental units. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996;62(11):3954–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Coleman DC, O'Donnell MJ, Shore AC, Russell RJ. Biofilm problems in dental unit water systems and its practical control. J Appl Microbiol. 2009;106(5):1424–37.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Veena HR, Mahantesha S, Joseph PA, Patil SR, Patil SH. Dissemination of aerosol and splatter during ultrasonic scaling: a pilot study. J Infect Public Health. 2015;8(3):260–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Watanabe A, Tamaki N, Yokota K, Matsuyama M, Kokeguchi S. Use of ATP bioluminescence to survey the spread of aerosol and splatter during dental treatments. J Hosp Infect. 2018;99(3):303–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zemouri C, de Soet H, Crielaard W, Laheij A. A scoping review on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental environment. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0178007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Holloman JL, Mauriello SM, Pimenta L, Arnold RR. Comparison of suction device with saliva ejector for aerosol and spatter reduction during ultrasonic scaling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(1):27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Costa D, Mercier A, Gravouil K, Lesobre J, Delafont V, Bousseau A, et al. Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in dental unit waterlines. Water Res. 2015;81:223–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jensen ET, Giwercman B, Ojeniyi B, Bangsborg JM, Hansen A, Koch C, et al. Epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis and the possible role of contamination by dental equipment. J Hosp Infect. 1997;36(2):117–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Smith G, Smith A. Microbial contamination of used dental handpieces. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(9):1019–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Abdouchakour F, Dupont C, Grau D, Aujoulat F, Mournetas P, Marchandin H, et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Achromobacter sp. clonal selection leads to successive waves of contamination of water in dental care units. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015;81(21):7509–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ji XY, Fei CN, Zhang Y, Zhang W, Liu J, Dong J. Evaluation of bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines and use of a newly designed measurement device to assess retraction of a dental chair unit. Int Dent J. 2016;66(4):208–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kanamori H, Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Healthcare outbreaks associated with a water reservoir and infection prevention strategies. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62(11):1423–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Johani K, Abualsaud D, Costa DM, Hu H, Whiteley G, Deva A, et al. Characterization of microbial community composition, antimicrobial resistance and biofilm on intensive care surfaces. J Infect Public Health. 2018;11(3):418–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Peralta G. Notes from the field: Mycobacterium abscessus infections among patients of a pediatric dentistry practice—Georgia, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:355–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pankhurst CL, Coulter WA. Do contaminated dental unit waterlines pose a risk of infection? J Dent. 2007;35(9):712–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Singh TS, Bello B, Mabe OD, Renton K, Jeebhay MF. Workplace determinants of endotoxin exposure in dental healthcare facilities in South Africa. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54(3):299–308.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Guerrieri E, Bondi M, Borella P, Messi P. Influence of aquatic microorganisms on legionella pneumophila survival. New Microbiol. 2007;30(3):247–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Buse HY, Ashbolt NJ. Counting legionella cells within single amoeba host cells. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78(6):2070–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lu J, Struewing I, Vereen E, Kirby AE, Levy K, Moe C, et al. Molecular detection of legionella spp. and their associations with Mycobacterium spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and amoeba hosts in a drinking water distribution system. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;120(2):509–21.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Federation FDIWD. FDI policy statement on dental unit water systems and microbial contamination: adopted by the FDI general assembly: September 2016, Poznan, Poland. Int Dent J. 2017;67(1):4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. van der Kooij D, Bakker GL, Italiaander R, Veenendaal HR, Wullings BA. Biofilm composition and threshold concentration for growth of legionella pneumophila on surfaces exposed to flowing warm tap water without disinfectant. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83(5).

  70. Vaccaro L, Izquierdo F, Magnet A, Hurtado C, Salinas MA, Gomes TS, et al. First case of Legionnaire's disease caused by legionella anisa in Spain and the limitations on the diagnosis of legionella non-pneumophila infections. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Fenstersheib M, Miller M, Diggins C, Liska S, Detwiler L, Werner SB, et al. Outbreak of Pontiac fever due to legionella anisa. Lancet. 1990;336(8706):35–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Ricci ML, Fontana S, Pinci F, Fiumana E, Pedna MF, Farolfi P, et al. Pneumonia associated with a dental unit waterline. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Schonning C, Jernberg C, Klingenberg D, Andersson S, Paajarvi A, Alm E, et al. Legionellosis acquired through a dental unit: a case study. J Hosp Infect. 2017;96(1):89–92.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Oppenheim BA, Sefton AM, Gill ON, Tyler JE, O'Mahony MC, Richards JM, et al. Widespread legionella pneumophila contamination of dental stations in a dental school without apparent human infection. Epidemiol Infect. 1987;99(1):159–66.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Reinthaler FF, Mascher F, Stunzner D. Serological examinations for antibodies against legionella species in dental personnel. J Dent Res. 1988;67(6):942–3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Borella P, Bargellini A, Marchesi I, Rovesti S, Stancanelli G, Scaltriti S, et al. Prevalence of anti-legionella antibodies among Italian hospital workers. J Hosp Infect. 2008;69(2):148–55.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. •• Petti S, Vitali M. Occupational risk for legionella infection among dental healthcare workers: meta-analysis in occupational epidemiology. BMJ Open. 2017;7(7):e015374 Thorough meta -analysis which assesses the level of scientific evidence regarding the relative occupational risk for Legionella infection among DHCWs.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Estrich CG, Gruninger SE, Lipman RD. Rates and predictors of exposure to legionella pneumophila in the United States among dental practitioners: 2002 through 2012. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017;148(3):164–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Petti S. The chicken-egg dilemma: Legionnaires' disease and retrograde contamination of dental unit waterlines. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016;37(10):1258–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Petti S. From 'Legionellosis acquired through a dental unit' to 'Was Legionellosis acquired through a dental unit? J Hosp Infect. 2017;96(2):204–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Petti S. Healthcare outbreaks associated with dental unit water systems: strong scientific evidence of minimal risk. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63(9):1270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Naeem A, Saluja SA, Krishna D, Shitanshu M, Arun S, Taseer B. Contamination of Dentist's hands with and without finger rings. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(8):114–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Ramich T, Eickholz P, Wicker S. Work-related infections in dentistry: risk perception and preventive measures. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(8):2473–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry of Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081, LA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    C. M. C. Volgenant & J. J. de Soet

  2. Department of Oral Kinesiology, Academic Centre for Dentistry of Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    C. M. C. Volgenant

Authors
  1. C. M. C. Volgenant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. J. de Soet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. J. de Soet.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

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

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Volgenant, C.M.C., de Soet, J.J. Cross-transmission in the Dental Office: Does This Make You Ill?. Curr Oral Health Rep 5, 221–228 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-018-0201-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-018-0201-3

Keywords

  • Infectious disease transmission
  • Dental infection control
  • Cross infection
  • Health care associated infection
  • Bacteria
  • Viruses