Comparison of the disinfection levels of alginate impressions in the prosthodontics department at Dr. René Puig Bentz’s clinic (UNPHU).
Description
This cross-sectional, in vitro, experimental study aims to compare the level of disinfection of alginate impressions obtained in the prosthodontic area of the Dr. René Puig Bentz Dental Clinic (UNPHU) when using two disinfectants: MD 520 and Lysol. Dental impressions often come into contact with saliva, blood, and dental plaque, all of which can contain a variety of microorganisms. Without proper disinfection protocols, this contamination poses a significant cross-infection risk to dental students, clinicians, and laboratory personnel. A total of 60 alginate impressions were collected under standard clinical conditions. Microbiological samples were obtained before and after disinfection, resulting in 120 samples total. The impressions were divided into two groups according to the disinfectant used. MD 520 was applied by immersion for five minutes, and Lysol was applied by spraying for three minutes, both in line with the manufacturers' recommendations. Microbial analysis identified and compared microorganisms present before and after the disinfection process. The results showed a significant reduction in microbial load in both groups. However, MD 520 was more effective, achieving higher levels of disinfection than Lysol. These results underscore the importance of selecting an appropriate disinfectant to ensure biosafety and reduce the risk of cross-contamination in dental clinical practice.
Files
Steps to reproduce
Alginate impressions were obtained from patients in the prosthodontic area of the Dr. René Puig Bentz dental clinic (UNPHU) under standard clinical conditions, using Hydrogum 5 alginate (Zhermack, Italy). An initial microbiological sample was collected from each impression before disinfection using a sterile cotton swab. The swab was applied to representative areas of the impression surface, such as the posterior borders, grooves, and occlusal surfaces, using a standardized zigzag motion to ensure uniform sample collection. The impressions were divided into two groups according to the disinfectant used. Group A was disinfected by immersion in a hydrobox for 5 minutes using MD 520 (Dürr Dental, Germany), following the manufacturer's instructions. Group B was disinfected using Lysol (Reckitt Benckiser, UK) via spray application for three minutes, ensuring complete surface coverage. After disinfection, a second sample was collected from each impression using the same technique. Each swab was placed in a sterile container and transported to the microbiology laboratory (AguasVivas Laboratory, Santo Domingo). The samples were cultured in media that promote microbial growth and incubated under controlled conditions to allow for the identification and quantification of microorganisms. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were recorded for analysis. All data were organized in Microsoft Excel 2021 and analyzed using statistical methods, including ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests, to compare the effectiveness of the two disinfectants.
Institutions
- Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez UreñaNacional, Santo Domingo