Dermal and mucosal reactions to an antimicrobial irreversible hydrocolloid impression material: A clinical report

Comprehensive Review and Comparison of the Disinfection Techniques Currently Available in the Literature

The goal of disinfection in the dental office is to prevent the spread of infection from one patient to another and maintain the safety of the dental care providers. Prevention of cross infection has significant effect on infection control. The standard procedure of rinsing impressions under tap water immediately after removal from the mouth eliminates microorganisms along with saliva and blood. A broad search on published literature was done using the keywords impression materials, disinfection method, and sterilization of dental impression from 1980 to 2016 in Medline, Google Scholar, the internet, and textbooks. This article critically analyzes the various published methods of dental impression disinfection in dentistry.

Effectiveness of mouthrinses and oral prophylaxis on reduction of microorganisms count in irreversible hydrocolloid impression: an in vivo study

Dental impressions, contaminated with saliva, blood, plaque, are potential source of infection. All impressions should be disinfected after their removal from mouth to prevent cross contamination. Different methods have been tried to disinfect the commonly used irreversible hydrocolloid impression material, but they have been shown to influence the dimensional stability and surface detail of the impression which ultimately affects the precision of the final prosthesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of pre-procedural oral prophylaxis and mouthrinses in reducing the overall microbial load intraorally as well as on alginate impression surface. A total of 60 positive cases selected from 100 subjects who were partially edentulous and above 18 years of age and without medical or pharmacotherapy histories were studied over a period of 18 months, from outpatient clinic of Department of Prosthodontics, GNIDSR. Alginate impressions, before and after prophylaxis were examined microbiologically for the persistence of test microorganisms on the untreated (control group) and the impressions made after treatment. The data were statistically analyzed by the Student t test to assess the effectiveness of the procedure and also the comparative effectiveness of oral prophylaxis and commonly used mouthrinses. The results showed that the impressions were safer when made after oral prophylaxis and/or mouthrinses.

Do adverse effects of dental materials exist? What are the consequences, and how can they be diagnosed and treated?

OBJECTIVES

All dental biomaterials release substances into the oral environment to a varying degree. Various preclinical biocompatibility test systems have been introduced, aiming at an evaluation of the potential risks of dental materials. Potential pathogenic effects of released substances from dental materials have been demonstrated. For the biocompatibility of a biomaterial, it is not only important that minimal diffusable substances are released when it is in body contact--the material must also fulfill the function for which it has been designed. This is also very much dependent on the material properties and its handling properties. The aim of this review was to generate an overview of the present status concerning adverse reactions among patients and personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed using a defined search strategy in order to evaluate all MEDLINE-literature published between 1996 and 2006.

RESULTS

The compilation of the literature available has revealed that the majority of studies have been carried out on patients compared with personnel. Adverse reactions towards dental materials do occur, but the prevalence and incidence are difficult to obtain. The results were essentially based on cohort studies. Clinical trials, especially randomized-controlled trials, are in the minority of all studies investigated, with the exception of composite and bonding studies, where clinical trials, but not randomized-controlled trials, represent the majority of studies. Patients and personnel were treated separately in the manuscript. Amalgam studies show the lowest degree of verified material-related diagnosis. Even if objective symptoms related to adverse reactions with polymer resin-based materials have been reported, postoperative sensitivity dominates reports concerning composites/bondings. Verified occupational effects among dental personnel show a low frequency of allergy/toxic reactions. Irritative hand eczema seemed to be more common than in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and personnel-related studies are of variable quality and can be improved. There is a need for a better description of the content of materials. A registry for adverse effects of dental materials would be useful to detect the occurrence of low-incidence events.