In this study we examine the efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing microbial contamination of dental unit water lines (DUWLs). METHODS: The study was performed on 54 randomly selected DUs in use at private and public institutions for over six months. The selected DUs were all currently commercially available. To evaluate the efficiency of anti-retraction devices, two different methods were employed, mechanical and microbiological. The ADA/ANSI specification #47 (corresponding to a water retraction of less than 40.3 microl) was used for the evaluation of the retraction determined using the mechanical method; the presence/absence of test microorganisms in DUWLs upstream the turbine after the test was used for evaluating the microbiological assay. RESULTS: Both evaluation methods indicated correct amounts of retraction and prevention of DUWL contamination occurred in only two cases (3.7%). Correct retraction was noted in six other dental units (DUs), but their DUWLs became contaminated during testing. Six other produced the opposite results-improper retraction, yet no contamination. The remaining 40 DUs (74.0%) failed both evaluations. CONCLUSION: The results showed that the overwhelming majority of the anti-retraction devices did not prevent retraction when the turbine stopped running, leading to a contamination of the water lines, and to a consequent possible cross-contamination of the patients.

Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines / Berlutti, Francesca; Testarelli, Luca; Francesco, Vaia; DE LUCA, Massimo; Dolci, Giovanni. - In: JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY. - ISSN 0300-5712. - 31:2(2003), pp. 105-110. [10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00004-6]

Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines

BERLUTTI, Francesca;TESTARELLI, Luca;DE LUCA, MASSIMO;DOLCI, Giovanni
2003

Abstract

In this study we examine the efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing microbial contamination of dental unit water lines (DUWLs). METHODS: The study was performed on 54 randomly selected DUs in use at private and public institutions for over six months. The selected DUs were all currently commercially available. To evaluate the efficiency of anti-retraction devices, two different methods were employed, mechanical and microbiological. The ADA/ANSI specification #47 (corresponding to a water retraction of less than 40.3 microl) was used for the evaluation of the retraction determined using the mechanical method; the presence/absence of test microorganisms in DUWLs upstream the turbine after the test was used for evaluating the microbiological assay. RESULTS: Both evaluation methods indicated correct amounts of retraction and prevention of DUWL contamination occurred in only two cases (3.7%). Correct retraction was noted in six other dental units (DUs), but their DUWLs became contaminated during testing. Six other produced the opposite results-improper retraction, yet no contamination. The remaining 40 DUs (74.0%) failed both evaluations. CONCLUSION: The results showed that the overwhelming majority of the anti-retraction devices did not prevent retraction when the turbine stopped running, leading to a contamination of the water lines, and to a consequent possible cross-contamination of the patients.
2003
anti-retraction valves; bacterial contamination; dental unit water lines
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines / Berlutti, Francesca; Testarelli, Luca; Francesco, Vaia; DE LUCA, Massimo; Dolci, Giovanni. - In: JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY. - ISSN 0300-5712. - 31:2(2003), pp. 105-110. [10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00004-6]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/250537
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 30
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 21
social impact