A new device for the disinfection of handpieces and turbines [Su un nuovo apparecchio per la disinfezione di manipoli e turbine.]

Dental handpieces are often difficult to disinfect. This is one of the main reasons for the considerable risk of cross-infections in dental offices. The aim of the present study was the evaluation of the disinfectant property of a recent, commercially available, automatic instrument, described as capable to clean, disinfect and lubricate dental handpieces. The following experimental evaluations were made: 1) antimicrobial activity of the disinfectant (glyoxalaldehyde) used. The method described by the European Committee for Standardization was followed. Test microorganisms were Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. 2) disinfection of dental handpieces (69 contra-angles and 97 turbines of different marks). They were naturally infected using them on patients for 30 minutes at least. 3) disinfection of dental handpieces infected with bacterial suspensions of Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes (beta-haemolyticus, group A), Candida albicans and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The results of the first experiment showed a strong bactericidal power of the disinfectant with both the tested strains, after a contact time of only 1 minute. A great proportion of the dental handpieces tested during the second experiment were found disinfected: from 84% through 89% out of the various models of turbine handpieces; from 89% through 100% out of the models of contra-angle handpieces. Even though bacterial contamination level was low (about 10(3) microorganisms per handpiece), a satisfactory disinfectant ability in natural conditions was found. The results of the third experiment were unclear. The tested instrument reduced 10(5)-10(8) times the original bacterial count when the gram positive microorganisms (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes) were used. On the other hand, when Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans were used, the results were different: the bacterial count was reduced 10(6)-10(7) times in some cases, and only 10(2) times in other cases. This difference was found in the tests made using the same attachment and in those made using various attachments. In conclusion, the tested instrument showed, in most cases, a good disinfectant property, but the presence of unclear results suggests that some technical modifications are required.