No abstract available.
Disinfection*

No abstract available.
Hand Disinfection*

Purpose: This study aims to compare surgical scrubbing with and without a brush in decreasing the number of germ colonies on hands. Background: Surgical scrubbing with and without a brush are currently popular worldwide. To date, the optimal method in decreasing the number of germ colonies on the hands is not known. Methods: Systematic review of effectiveness was conducted. The databases and publisher websites included PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library, Cochrane Library and recruitment studies published between 2009-2019. The risk of bias was assessed utilizing Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results: Included clinical studies consisting of five randomized controlled trials. The procedures and duration of surgical scrubbing on each study varied depending on the protocol as a reference. All clinical studies found no difference in the number of colonyforming units (CFU) on the hand between surgical scrubbing with and without a brush. Conclusions Scrubbing with and without a brush showed similar efficacy in terms of the number of germ colonies on the hands.
Hand Disinfection

The purpose of this study was to evalute the effect of immersion disinfection on the dimensional stability of rubber impression materials. The metallic master model was made in order to simulate the intraoral arch form. Impressions were made from four impression materials (Exaflex, Extrude, Reprosil, Impregum-F) and immersed in three disinfectant solutions (Wydex, Vi-Pon, Potadine). Casts from the impressions were measured according to the interpreparation distance. The A-B and The B-D abutment distance were compared with the control group and disinfected groups. The results were as follows; 1. The measurements of the stone cast increased relative to the master model and there was a significant difference (P<0.05). 2. The relative dimensional change of the stone cast as compared with master model ranged from 0.10% to 0.56% in the A-B distance and ranged from 0.04% to 0.27% in the B-D distance. 3. The dimensional change of the disinfected groups as compared with the control group was significantly different in the three impression materials except for Impregum-F (P<0.05). 4. The relative dimensional change of the disinfected groups compared with the control group ranged from 0% to 0.20% in the A-B distance and ranged from -0.09% to 0.11% in the B-D distance. These results suggest that immersion disinfection of rubber impression materials by chemical disinfectants causes very small dimensional change and the change is clinically acceptable for prothesis fabrication
Disinfectants ; Disinfection* ; Immersion* ; Rubber*

Dental Impression Materials ; Disinfection

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Because dental impression can be a cross-infection source, disinfection, such as immersion disinfection is nessecary. However, the disinfection process may change the volume of the impression cast. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to find out the effects on dimensional change of different storage times and methods, of agar-alginate impression when immersed in a 5% idophor disinfectant. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An agar-alginate impression was made from a mandible model and then was disinfected and stored according the experimental conditions and a stone model was produced. Measurements were taken between reference points on the original mandible model and they were compared to measurements taken between reference points on the stone model. The study was divided into 4 groups. In group 1, the impression was stored in a 100% humidor for 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours and 24 hours and stone models were made at each time. In group 2, the impression was immersed in 5% idophor disinfectant and then stored in a 100% humidor for the same length of times as group 1, and stone models were made at each time. In group 3, the impression was stored in extend-A-pourR, a special storage solution for 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, 4 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours 3 days, and 7 days and stone models were made at each time. In group 4, the impression was immersed in 5% idophor disinfectant and then stored in stored in extend-A-pourR, a special storage solution for the same length of times as group 3, and stone models were made at each time. 5 impressions and stone models were made at each time to make a total of 180. The Student-t test (P < .05) was used to do a statistical analysis of the measurements of the mandible model and stone models. The repeated-measure 2-way analysis of variance (P < .05) was used to do a statistical analysis of the difference in the 4 groups. RESULTS: The percent liner dimensional change was from 0.25+/-0.03% (group 1, 30 minutes) to 0.34+/-0.06% (group 4, 7 days). No significant change was noticed between the 4 groups. CONCLUSION: According to the above study, in both methods, least dimensional change was recorded when the storage times were short and in both methods, immersion in 5% idophor disinfectant did not effect dimensional change in the agar-alginate impression.
Disinfection* ; Immersion ; Mandible

Several issues concerning endoscope reprocessing remain unresolved based on currently available data. Thus, further studies are required to confirm standard practices including safe endoscope shelf life, proper frequency of replacement of some accessories including water bottles and connecting tubes, and microbiological surveillance testing of endoscopes after reprocessing. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newer technology that allows automated cleaning and disinfection is one such controversial issue. In addition, there are no guidelines on whether delayed reprocessing and extended soaking may harm endoscope integrity or increase the bioburden on the external or internal device surfaces. In this review, we discuss the unresolved and controversial issues regarding endoscope reprocessing.
Disinfection ; Endoscopes* ; Endoscopy ; Water

According to the national soft endoscope cleaning standard and the difference between the previous and latest version, the origin decontamination equipment is upgraded. Sensory control monitoring results in the last year shows that the average cleaning time for a single endoscope has been reduced from 20 min 55 s to 17 min 16 s. The number of bacterial colony has been reduced from 6.8 to 3.1. The pass rate of sensory control monitoring keeps steady. The upgraded decontamination equipment not only meets the requirements of the latest version of the standard,but also improves the efficiency and effectiveness of electronic endoscope disinfection.
Disinfection ; Endoscopes ; Equipment Contamination

Disinfection ; Research ; Mass Screening

Since waterborne diseases are still an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the Philippine setting, it is evident that the quality of water supplies cannot always be assured, and remedial measures are required to provide consumers with safe drinking water. Boiling is a proven household disinfection method, but doubt regarding its efficacy has led to a search for alternatives. This study was thus performed to compare the efficacy of various methods of water treatment, and to perform a cost analysis for each method Sterile water was seeded with E. Coli ATCC 25922 to a concentration of 10 exponent 5 cfu/ml. Equal amounts were then disinfected by:(1) boiling for 10 minutes; (2) passage through an ultraviolet (UV) light water treatment device (UV Waterworks TM); (3) reverse osmosis (RO). Three replicates were done for each procedure, and for each replicate five aliquots were obtained for (1) immediate testing: (2) testing after 24 hours in room temperature; (3) testing after 24 hours at a temperature of 2-8 degrees C; (4) testing after 48 hours in room temperature; and (5) testing after 48 hours at a temperature of 2-8 degrees C, Samples were analyzed using the spread-plate method on MacConkeys agar. For all samples taken, no growth was seen after 24 hours of incubation Taking into account the cost of consumables for each method, UV disinfection has the advantage of being 200 times less expensive than boiling, which in turn is less costly by 50 percent compared to RO. The increased cost of RO is due to large amount of water discarded during processing. An advantage offered by methods such as RO and UV disinfection is its time-saving aspect. However, households without access to UV or RO units should consider boiling a cost-effective option, so long as manpower and fuel resources are available. (Author)