International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Various Cold Sterilization Techniques on Routinely used Carbide Burs and Diamond Points

Suganthi Ranganathan, Chaitra Koppal Renukanath

Citation Information : Ranganathan S, Renukanath CK. Comparison of Various Cold Sterilization Techniques on Routinely used Carbide Burs and Diamond Points. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2017; 7 (3):97-102.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1185

Published Online: 01-09-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study is to compare the various cold sterilization techniques for sterilizing dental burs and diamond points by assessing the microbial growth in culture media on them before and after sterilization.

Materials and methods

The following four disinfectants were used: 2% glutaraldehyde, 5.2% sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, and 70% ethanol. There were two main groups taken as group I-carbide burs and group II-diamond burs. A total of 48 samples were collected, 12 samples per disinfectant. Each sample has two burs collected from same patient. One acts as control group which means only microbial count was deter- mined without disinfection. The other one would be determined as microbial count before and after disinfection. The microbial assessment was done using brain heart infusion (BHI) broth and counted by plating in chocolate blood agar and MacConkey agar.

Results

The obtained results were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and post hoc test. The results revealed that there was statistically significant difference between sodium hypochlorite and surgical spirit, sodium hypochlo- rite and hydrogen peroxide. There was no statistically significant difference between sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde.

Conclusion

The results of this study revealed that sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde are most effective than hydro- gen peroxide, and surgical spirit is the least effective disinfectant. However, there was clinical significance in level of disinfection of all four disinfectants.

How to cite this article

Ranganathan S, Manvi S, Gopalakrishna S, Renukanath CK. Comparison of Various Cold Sterilization Tech- niques on Routinely used Carbide Burs and Diamond Points. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2017;7(3):97-102.


PDF Share
  1. A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs. Br Dent J 2004 Nov;197(10):635-640.
  2. Current status of sterilization instruments, devices and method for the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc 1981 May;102(5):683-689.
  3. Factors affecting sterilization in glass bead sterilizers. J Endod 1984 Oct;(10):465-470.
  4. Halikis, The use of chemical disinfectants in the dental surgery, Australian Dental Journal, December, 1962, 445-450.
  5. Cutting effective- ness of diamond instruments subjected to cyclic sterilization methods. J Prosthet Dent 1991 Dec;66(6):721-726.
  6. The cleaning of dental diamond burs. Br Dent J 1983 Jan;154(2):42-45.
  7. Disinfection of dental diamond burs contaminated with hepatitis B virus. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Sep;82(3):332-335.
  8. Sterilization and disinfection of dental instruments. Chicago (IL): ADA; 2009. [cited 2015 Jan 22]. Available from: http://www.ada.org/?/media/ADA/Member%20Center/FIles/cdc_sterilization.ashx.
  9. Reprocessing single-use devices - the ethical dilemma. AORN J 2002 May;75(5):989-999.
  10. Evaluation of the efficacy of glutaraldehyde and peroxygen for disinfection of dental instruments. Lett Appl Microbiol 1998 Nov;27(5):292-296.
  11. Dental burs and endodontic files: are routine sterilization procedures effective? JCDA 2009 Feb;75(1):39-43.
  12. Influence of microwave sterilization on the cutting capacity of carbide burs. J Appl Oral Sci 2009 Nov-Dec;17(6):584-589.
  13. Decon- tamination methods used for dental burs-a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014 Jun;8(6):ZC39-ZC41.
  14. An efficacy of sodium hypo- chlorite in disinfecting the contaminated dental instruments. J Pharm Sci Res 2015 Aug;7(8):563-565.
  15. On the use of certain antiseptic substances in the treatment of infected wounds. Br Med J 1915 Aug;2(2852):318-320.
  16. Cytotoxic effects of NaoCl on vital tissues. J Endod 1985 Dec;11(12):525-528.
  17. Comparative sporicidal effects of liquid chemical agents. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996 Feb;62(2):545-551.
  18. ; McKetta, JJ.; Othmer, DF. Encyclopedia of chemical technology. 2nd ed. New York: Interscience; 1964. p. 10-15.
  19. Chemistry in the marketplace. 4th ed. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanich; 1989. p. 55-56.
  20. S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease and Preventions. 5th Edition. National Institutes of Health; 2009. HHS Publication No. (CDC) 21-112: Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL)
  21. The effect of NaOCl treatment and sterilization procedures on the corrosion of endodontic files. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2005 Mar;30(2):121-127.
  22. The efficacy of chemical agents in cleaning and disinfection programs. BMC Infect Dis 2001 Sep;1:16.
  23. Evaluation of the efficacy of glutaraldehyde and peroxygen for disinfection of dental instruments. Lett Appl Microbiol 1998 Nov;27(5):292-296.
  24. Pathological evaluation for sterilization of routinely used prosthodontic and endodontic instruments. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015 May-Jun;5(3):232-236.
  25. Disinfection of dental diamond burs contaminated with hepatitis B virus. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Sep;82(3):332-335.
  26. Mode of action of hydrogen peroxide and other oxidizing agents: differences between liquid and gas forms. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010 Oct;65(10):2108-2115.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.