Effects of Different Disinfectants

Effects of Different DisinfectantsAbstract worldDentists, dental consonant equipments and dental laboratories be exposed to dissimilar types of pathogenic littleorganisms. The aim of this shoot was to investigate the effect of spray terce different types of sweepant constituents sodium hypochlorite 0.525 %, Epimax and Deconex, on condensational ti by and by 5 and 10 minutes.Method and materialsIn this in vitro experimental study, 66 circular samples of condensational silicon icon materials of 1cm diameter and 2mm heaviness (1.5 mm thickness of throw offy and 0.5 mm thickness of wash) were contaminated with staphylococci aureus ,(ATCC29213) Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC27853) and Candida albi crowd outs fungus (PTCC5027). Except for control samples all of them were disinfected with sodium hypochlorite 0.525%, Deconex and Epimax by way of spraying. Afterwards, they were kept in plastic bags filled with humid cotton rolled for 5 and 10 minutes. In fix up to insulate bacteria the samples were immersed in 2% trypsin for one hour and then the resolvent was diluted with normal salin in portion of 1,1/2 and 1/4. The trypsin suspensions were transferred to culture plates and the number of colonies was counted laterwards 24 and 48 hours for bacteria and after 72 hours for fungus. All data was analyzed by Mann Whitney test in SPSS software program (=0.05).ResultsThere was a substantial difference between disinfection capability of Epimax and Deconex for all mentioned microorganisms after 5 minutes (P value=0.034). Also the difference was significant between disinfection ability of hypochlorite sodium 0.525% and Epimax for staphylococci aureus (P value=0.043) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P value=0.046) after 5 minutes. There was a significant difference between disinfection effects of Epimax and Deconex(P value=0.034) and hypochlorite sodium0.525% and Epimax(P value=0.034) for Pseudomonas aeruginosa after 10 minutes. By changing time from 5 minutes to 10 minu tes, disinfection efficacy of Epimax and Hypochlorite sodium 0.525% changed dramatically. Deconex was exclusively efficient in eliminating 100 % of microorganisms in twain 5 and 10 minutes.ConclusionThis study revealed that condensational silicon can be efficaciously disinfected by triple types of disinfectant agents by spraying system, although Deconex showed the best results compared to the other agents which demo that this agent can be selected as a first choice to disinfect condensational silicon smell materials.Key wordsCondensational silicone, Disinfection, Impression materials,IntroductionDentists and dental laboratories are exposed to different types of pathogen microorganisms. The main sources of transition of ad-lib infections from patients to laboratory are archetype materials, impression trays and poured stone casts. (1)New studies pay off shown that, 67% of materials which are sent to dentallaboratories are infected by various microorganisms (2). The most freq uently identified microorganisms are Streptococcus species, Staphylococcus species, Escherichia coli species, Actinomyces species, Antitratus species, Pseudomonas species, Enterobacter species, Klebsiella pneumonia and Candida species.(3). on that pointfore, an effort should be made to eliminate most of these microorganisms and push down the rate of infection transmission to dentistry laboratories. The International dental consonant Federation consequently have insisted on disinfecting all impressions from patients before sending them to laboratories (4). Also the American dental Association has advised all dental workers to disinfect all patients impression trays (5). In some studies, it has been tell that washing the impression materials with tap piddle only removes 40% of bacteria but other studies have reported that it has the capacity to reduce microorganisms up to 90 %( 6). The most common chemical disinfectants utilise by dentists are Alcohols, Aldehydes, Chlorine comb inations, phenylic acids, Biguanides, Iodide combinations and Ammonium (7). Based on the type of chemical disinfectant, there are devil common systems to disinfect dental materials 1) immersion 2) spraying (6).Disinfection by immersing in the chemical materials has been proved to move through all surfaces in one time (8) while spraying is not capable of disinfecting all surfaces effectively and as well cannot cover all undercuts, it significantly reduces the amount of distortion that take place in immersing method (6).Silicon impression materials are the first group of polymeric impression materials (9). These materials have the best dimensional stability. Polyvinyl impression materials are the only impression materials which can be disinfected without any dimensional changes (10). Also, different methods much(prenominal) as souse in glutaraldehyde for 30 minutes have been suggested to disinfect these materials. Use of hypochlorite sodium and phenol combinations with the soak ing time less than pouring time have been suggested by Some studies (11).J.Bustos investigated the effect of 0.05 % hypochlorite sodium and glutaraldehyde after 5 and 10 minutes on silicon impression materials. He declared that both(prenominal) of these disinfectants can efficiently go along the bacterial growth on these impressions materials (12).Ghahremanloo A et al also conducted a research in 2009 and investigated the antimicrobial effect of sodium hypochlorite 0.525 %, Deconex and Sanosil. They concluded that the use of 0.525 % sodium hypochlorite spray on the surface of alginate effectively disinfects 96.6 % of the samples (13).Since none of the mentioned disinfectant methods and agents have been accepted as a gold trite for disinfecting dental materials, finding an appropriate way seems shrewd.The aim of this study was to investigate the disinfectant ability of spraying Deconex, atomic number 11 hypochlorite 0.525 % and Epimax on condensational silicon impression materia l in 5 minutes and 10 minutes.Methods and MaterialsThis randomized experimental and microbiological study was carried out with the cooperation of dental school and microbiology subdivision of the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, aiming to evaluate the disinfection effect of sodium Hypochlorite0.525%, Deconex and Epimax on the condensational silicon impression material.Sampling MethodsIn order to prepare samples, the heavy body impression material (putty) was mixed with the catalyst according to manufacturer instructions. The mixture was hardened in a syringe with one centimeter diameter so that samples with 1.5 millimeter thickness were gained. Then the light body impression material (Wash) was mixed with the catalyst on a paper pad with a uninspired spatula and was placed in the upper 0.5 millimeter of the syringe.Eventually 66 samples, with 2mm thickness and 1 cm diameter, were prepared. In order to ensure that samples were kept sterilized during preparation, collar sa mples were selected as negative controls (blank) and were incubated on TSB culture for 24 to 48 hours after which the bacterial growth was examined. For each bacterial type, 21 samples were used. Sodium hypochlorite0.525% was used to disinfect triple of them for five minutes and three others for 10 minutes. Three samples were disinfected with Deconex for five minutes and three others for 10 minutes. And three samples were disinfected with Epimax for five minutes and three others for 10 minutes. At Last, three more samples were used as absolute controls to check for any microbial pollution.Preparation of Microbial Solution and YeastFor many types of susceptibility testing, a standard inoculum of bacteria must be used. The standard inoculums were prepared according to 0.5 McFarland (1.5108cfu/ml) by transferring 1-2 colonies of 18-24 hours cultures to TSB middling and incubated at 35c until 0.5 McFarland turbidity of media was gained. For Candida albicans fungus, the sample was tak en from 48 hour Saborose and Dextrose agar cultures.Contamination of SamplesTo evaluate the disinfection effect of three mentioned substances, samples were separately polluted with microbial suspensions of Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC29213), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC27853) and Candida albicans fungus (PTCC5027). The impressions were put in sterile test tubes separately with 2 milliliter of microbial suspension in each tube and then all samples incubated at 35 C for one hour.Disinfection of Samples and microbiological SurveysAfter contamination, all samples were rinsed with sterile distilled water for 30 seconds. In order to disinfect all samples, overleap controls, Sodium Hypochlorite 0.525%, Deconex and Epimax were separately sprayed 10 times on each sample for 15 seconds. Then the samples were put into sterile plastic bags containing sterile cotton, humidified with sterile distilled water to form a moisturized environment for 5 and 10 minutes.Protease Trypsin, which is able to isolate the microbes from contaminated environments, was used. The ideal time and dilution for effective use of Trypsin is 60 minutes and 2% respectively. This time and dilution are based on the maximum microorganisms than can be isolated from the samples. After washing the samples with sterile distilled water for 30 seconds, they were put in Trypsin 2% solution for 60 minutes. Trypsin Suspensions with 1, and dilution were then prepared. employ 100 micro liter samplers, these samples were transferred to Muller Hinton Agar for Pseudomonas aeroginosa and Staphylococcus aureus bacteria and Saborow Dextrose Agar culture was selected for Candida albicans fungus. Using a Pasteur pipet bent with heat at 90 degrees, the samples were spread on cultures. After 24 and 48 hours incubation, the grown bacterial colonies on culture were counted. The grown fungus colonies of Candida albicans on Saborow culture were counted after 72 hours. All results, were analyzed by Mann Witney test in SPSS s oftware program.(=0.05)Results concord to the table 1, there is a significant difference between disinfection ability of Deconex and Epimax in 5 minutes (P Value=0.034). This difference is also significant for hypochlorite sodium and Epimax just for pseudomonas aeruginosa (p value=0.046) and staphylococcus Aureus (p value=0.043). In other cases, there is no significant difference in disinfection ability of materials in 5 minutes. (P value0.05)According to the table 2, significant difference between disinfection capability of hypochlorite sodium epimax and deconex- epimax was just seen after 10 minutes for pseudomonas aeruginosa.According to the table 3, Deconex completely exhaustd all three kinds of microorganisms after 5 and 10 minutes. This is not true for hypochlorite sodium, as this material just eradicated staphylococcus Aureus and pseudomonas aeruginosa after 10 minutes 98.68 % eradication of pseudomonas aeruginosa was seen after 5 minutes.After 5 minutes, epimax could eradi cate 95.78 % of pseudomonas aeruginosa. This agent can completely eradicate candida Albicans and Staphylococcus Aureus after 10 minutes.By increasing time from 5 to 10 minutes, disinfection ability of all agents increased, except for Deconex which is 100 % for all microorganisms in both 5 minutes and 10 minutes.When there are mammoth numbers of bacterial colonies, which are not countable, we can count the number of colonies using inverse dilution coefficient. Since realistic number of colonies was countable in dilution1, and all results from other dilutions were similar to mentioned results, the results regarding to the number of colonies in other twain dilutions were not reported.DiscussionDentists practicing dentistry, encounter potentially harmful microorganisms. Patients are the most common source of microorganisms (14). Studies indicate that the surface of impressions taken out of the mouth is polluted with bacteria (15-18). As impressions and occlusal records cannot be ster ilized by heat, chemical disinfection is still the common practicable method to eradicate microorganisms (19-21). So far there is no global way to disinfect impression materials (22). The American Dental Association (ADA) recommends soaking impression materials in disinfectant solutions for less than 30 minutes (23). Muller Bolla et al found that in European schools of dentistry, the soaking method is applied for 63% and 73% of Alginate impressions and silicon impressions respectively. The approximate time of disinfection was 10.36.3 minutes (20).But Hiroshi Egusa and colleagues in 2008 showed that impressions from patients mouths contain hazardous microorganisms like Streptocci, Staphylococcus aureus, Methicillin resistant Staphyloccocus, , Candida, Pseudomonas aeruginosa with rate of 100%, 55.6% 25,9%,5.6 % and 5.6 % respectively(22). These are opportunistic pathogens that spread and transfer through the oral cavity (22). Candida causes common opportunist infections known as oral candidiasis, found in patients with immune deficiency (23). Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a deadly infectious agent that exists epidemically in hospital appliances and instruments (22) However, studies show that among population the spreading rate of S. pyogenes, S. pneumonia and S. aureus to pharynx is 10%, 20 to 32% and 30% respectively (14). This is the reason that in this survey, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were selected to investigate the disinfection capability of disinfectant agents.By the category 1991, washing the impression materials with running water was the common way to remove microorganisms (22). This method can reduce about 90% of bacteria. (24) Running water can wash up saliva, blood and debris. But new-made studies indicate that such methods cannot eliminate microorganisms from impression materials completely. Therefore washing the impression materials with running water, without disinfectants is not rational (22).In this surve y three common disinfectant agents were used. One of them is Hypochlorite sodium 0.525 %. which is used in housekeeping too. This disinfectant can efficiently prevent microorganisms growth and disinfect the impression materials.In a study by J.Bustos (12), it was shown that immersing silicon impressions in 0.5% hypochlorite sodium after 5 and 10 minutes dramatically prevent the bacterial growth in compare to the control group. Although in the recent study spraying method was used, results of the recent study are consistent with the mentioned study.On the other hand Westerholm, Reuggeberg and colleagues also showed that spraying Sodium hypochlorite can effectively disinfect the impression materials (25-26). The Westerholm and et al study showed that Sodium hypochlorite can almost completely (99.99%) prevent the growth of S. aureus and this rate is about 99.60 % after 5 minutes and 100 % after 10 minutes for s.aureus in the surrender study. In another study by Ghahramanloo et al, spr aying Sodium Hypochlorite 0.525 % could disinfect samples effectively (96.6%) after 10 minutes which is a good indicator of high capability of this agent (13). In studies by Westerholm, Rueggeberg and Ghahramanloo disinfection effect of these agents were assessed on irreversible hydrochloride (Alginate), but in this survey this effect has been assessed on condensational silicon. The results showed that there is no difference in disinfection capability of hypochlorite sodium regardless of impression material and this is a good proof for high penetration of this agent into impression materials porosities.Decnex is an alcoholic based disinfectant agent, which in this study could effectively disinfect impression materials after 5 and 10 minutes (100 %). But in Ghahremanloo A et al study, this agent could eradicate 70.4 % of microorganisms (13). Maybe the main reason for this difference is that Ghahramanloo A used irreversible hydrochloride, which has more porosities and cause deep penet ration of microorganism into this impression material and can mark the lesser capability of disinfectant agent in eradicating microorganisms. The specific feature about this agent is that there is no difference in disinfection ability of Deconex after 5 minutes and 10 minutes.In the present study, for the first time the antimicrobial effect of Epimax on impression materials was investigated. This agent could not effectively eradicate microorganism after 5 minutes in compare to two other agents, but after 10 minutes it completely (100 %) eradicated candida albicans and staphylococos aureos but this rate was 97.89 for Pseudomonas aeroginosa which shows the importance of using this agent for perennial duration.However, it should be mentioned that the results of the present study are not completely consistent with the results of other studies, due to different impression materials brands and usage time.One of the shortcomings of the present study is that it is an in-vitro experimental study which is different from clinical and in-vivo situations. commonly impression materials remain 3 to 5 minutes in patients mouth, while in our study it took 60 minutes to attach all the bacterial types to the samples as 60 minutes is an effective time for bacterial friendship. Also pressure while taking an impression and saliva can alter bacterial adherence capacity.This study investigated the effect of three common disinfectant agents on two types of bacteria and one fungus. As so many dentists are concerned about viruses such as HIV and HBV, further studies should be conducted to find an effective way to eradicate these kinds of pathogens.ConclusionIt can be concluded that sodium hypochlorite, Deconex and Epimax can effectively disinfect condensational silicon. This capability is higher for Deconex and it is recommended that Deconex can be the first choice to disinfect condensational silicon impression materials.AcknowledgementWe would like to express our sincere acknowledg ement in the support and help of microbiology department of Isfahan medical university and research department of dentistry faculty of Isfahan University of medical science.