IADR Abstract Archives
Peracetic Acid: An alternative to Cavicide for Chair-side Disinfection
Objectives: The aim of the study was to evaluate if peracetic acid (PA) at 1000-ppm concentration could disinfect alginate and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) dental impressions as effectively as currently accepted protocol of Cavicide spray (CV)
Methods: The study was approved by VCU Institutional Review Board (HM20009665). Verbal consent was obtained from all participants prior to taking the impressions. Two maxillary impressions were taken from each participant- one with alginate (Jeltrate Original) and the other with PVS (Regisil 2x). The impressions were placed in a plastic bag and immediately transferred to the sterile hood. A total of 10 samples of identical dimensions were prepared from each dental impression using sterile 6-mm dermal biopsy punches The samples (n=2) were divided into 5 groups based on specific disinfection protocol :
1) PA, 1 minute immersion
2) PA, 3 minute immersion
3) CV 1 minute contact time
4) CV 3 minute contact time
5) Negative control (no treatment)
After sterilization, each sample was immersed in sterile water for five seconds and then transferred into individual tubes containing BHI broth using sterile forceps,. The tubes were placed in a micro-aerophilic (6% O2) jar, and then placed in a 37°C incubator for 24 hours. Growth was assessed via turbidity and judged as growth or no growth. Differences in sterilization rate were compared using log-linear model.
Results: The results show that both PA and Cavicide achieved similar disinfection rates (100%) of alginate impressions at both time points (1 and 3 min). However, the disinfection was not reliable for PVS impressions. The failures patterns in each group were as follows: four in 1min PA; one in 3 min PA; one in 1 min CV and two in 3min Differences in sterilization rates were not statistically significantly related to the material (p-value=0.9783), sterilant (p-value=1.00), or the interaction between material and sterilant (p-value=1.00).
Conclusions: The results show that both PA and Cavicide achieved similar disinfection rates (100%) of alginate impressions at both time points (1 and 3 min). However, the disinfection was not reliable for PVS impressions.
Methods: The study was approved by VCU Institutional Review Board (HM20009665). Verbal consent was obtained from all participants prior to taking the impressions. Two maxillary impressions were taken from each participant- one with alginate (Jeltrate Original) and the other with PVS (Regisil 2x). The impressions were placed in a plastic bag and immediately transferred to the sterile hood. A total of 10 samples of identical dimensions were prepared from each dental impression using sterile 6-mm dermal biopsy punches The samples (n=2) were divided into 5 groups based on specific disinfection protocol :
1) PA, 1 minute immersion
2) PA, 3 minute immersion
3) CV 1 minute contact time
4) CV 3 minute contact time
5) Negative control (no treatment)
After sterilization, each sample was immersed in sterile water for five seconds and then transferred into individual tubes containing BHI broth using sterile forceps,. The tubes were placed in a micro-aerophilic (6% O2) jar, and then placed in a 37°C incubator for 24 hours. Growth was assessed via turbidity and judged as growth or no growth. Differences in sterilization rate were compared using log-linear model.
Results: The results show that both PA and Cavicide achieved similar disinfection rates (100%) of alginate impressions at both time points (1 and 3 min). However, the disinfection was not reliable for PVS impressions. The failures patterns in each group were as follows: four in 1min PA; one in 3 min PA; one in 1 min CV and two in 3min Differences in sterilization rates were not statistically significantly related to the material (p-value=0.9783), sterilant (p-value=1.00), or the interaction between material and sterilant (p-value=1.00).
Conclusions: The results show that both PA and Cavicide achieved similar disinfection rates (100%) of alginate impressions at both time points (1 and 3 min). However, the disinfection was not reliable for PVS impressions.
3175343_File000001.jpg
3175343_File000000.jpg