IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Three Instrument Washers, Two Dishwashers, One Ultrasonic Cleaner
OBJECTIVES: Compare cleaning, disinfection, and drying efficiency of three dental instrument washers (DIW), two commercial dishwasher controls (CD), and one ultrasonic cleaner control (UC).
METHODS:
Unit Characterization: Recorded cycle times, cycle temperatures, effluent volumes, etc.
Cleaning: Coated instruments with human whole blood (HWB); dried; distributed randomly into closed-style cassettes, open-style cassettes, and baskets; washed; visually inspected for residual blood.
Disinfection: Coated instruments with 50:50 suspension of HWB:bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus ATCC #6538, about 109 cfu/ml); dried; distributed randomly into closed-style cassettes and open-style cassettes and baskets; washed instruments and collected effluent samples; visually inspected for residual blood; cultured effluent and instrument samples.
Drying: Washed clean instruments; inspected for wetness.
Data analyzed using Fisher's Exact Test (p<0.0001).
RESULTS:
|
Unit Name & Model Number |
Cycle Times |
% Clean Instruments |
% Instruments Without Test Bacteria (Disinfection) |
% Dry Instruments |
|
|
Heavy Duty Wash with Dry (Hr:Min:Sec) |
Open-Style Baskets & Cassettes |
Closed-Style Cassettes |
All Basket/Cassette Styles |
All Basket/Cassette Styles |
|
|
CD |
|||||
|
Danby |
1:01:59 |
98% |
23% |
96% |
47% |
|
Kenmore 16042 |
1:58:30 |
93% |
8% |
99% |
55% |
|
DIW |
|||||
|
Hydrim C51w |
0:33:59 |
98% |
3% |
98% |
73% |
|
Hydrim L110w |
0:47:36 |
97% |
26% |
99% |
87% |
|
Miele G7881 |
0:58:56 |
97% |
34% |
98% |
68% |
|
UC (HealthSonics T3.3C) |
|||||
|
2 Layers |
0:20:00 |
94% |
NA |
0% |
0% |
|
Overloaded (Filled basket) |
72% |
NA |
0% |
0% |
|
UC had the shortest cycle time, followed by DIW then CD.
DIW and CD cleaned, disinfected, and dried instruments better than UC control.
DIW and CD cleaned instruments significantly better in open-style baskets/cassettes vs. closed-style cassettes.
DIW and CD disinfected instruments equally well.
DIW dried instruments better than CD.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DIW and CD performed similarly and performed better than the UC. All DIW and CD cleaned and disinfected well. Hydrim L110w DIW performed best overall.