Different Disinfection Strategies in Bacterial and Biofilm Contamination on Dental Unit Waterlines: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to explore the effectiveness of different methods of reducing contamination and biofilms in dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) and to provide reference for future standardisation of disinfection practices in dental clinic.

METHODS

This systematic review searched PubMed and Web of Science databases for DUWL disinfection studies from 2013 to 2023, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and Synthesis Without Meta-analysis, additional extracting relevant data based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The study review identified 8442 articles, with 58 included after rigorous screening. Disinfection methods for DUWLs were categorised into 14 physical and 90 chemical methods. Peroxides, chloramine-based, and biguanide methods were frequently used, often in combination. The effectiveness of these methods varied; for instance, phenolic was effective, while alcohol was not, in reducing bacterial and biofilm contamination. Biguanide, when used alone or combined with chlorine-based or alcohol, showed mixed results. Chlorine-based methods, particularly when combined with quaternary ammonium salt or enzymes, were generally effective. Enzymes and iodophor also demonstrated efficacy, though with some inconsistencies. Mechanical systems, peroxides, quaternary ammonium salts, silver, and tube coatings had varying degrees of success. Other innovative methods, such as Aloe vera and slightly acidic electrolysed water, showed promise in some studies, but the effectiveness of flushing was questioned. This comprehensive analysis highlights the diversity and complexity of disinfection strategies for DUWLs.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should focus on how material composition and tubing design affect biofilm development and the effectiveness of disinfection methods to guide the design of advanced dental units.

Bioaerosols and Airborne Transmission in the Dental Clinic

The importance of aerosols (particles suspended in air) produced during dental procedures became more apparent than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerns over transmission of infection in these aerosols led to unprecedented disruption to dental services across the world, adversely impacting patients' oral health. This article discusses the evidence related to airborne transmission of infectious diseases and the relevance to dentistry. The production of bioaerosols (aerosols carrying biological material) during dental procedures is explored, as well as how the potential risks posed by these bioaerosols can be controlled. A better understanding of dental bioaerosols is needed to prevent similar disruption to dental services in future outbreaks, and to reduce the risk of infection of dental professionals when treating patients with active infections who require urgent or emergency dental care.

[Effect of Using Hydrogen Peroxide for Periodic Disinfection Combined With Continuous Disinfection to Control Contamination in Dental Unit Waterline]

Objective

To observe the effect of using hydrogen peroxide in periodic disinfection combining with continuous disinfection of dental unit waterlines and to provide references for the selection of waterway disinfection measures.

Methods

A total of 4 dental units in a hospital of stomatology were selected through convenience sampling. The dental unit waterlines received periodic disinfection once every 4 weeks in addition to continuous disinfection (When the dental units were not used for more than 3 days, an additional periodic disinfection would be performed.). Periodic disinfection referred to filling up the waterlines with a disinfectant solution (1.4% hydrogen peroxide) by using the waterline disinfection device that came with the dental unit, immersing for 24 hours, and then emptying out the disinfectant solution. Continuous disinfection referred to using hydrogen peroxide at a concentration of 0.014% as dental treatment water and using it to flush the waterlines for 2 minutes before any dental treatment in the morning and to flush the waterlines for 30 seconds after each dental treatment. The study lasted for 25 weeks, with periodic disinfection being performed for 7 times and continuous disinfection carried out for the rest of the dental treatment time. During the 25 weeks, water samples were collected from air/water syringes and high-speed handpieces. Then, the water samples were incubated and the bacterial concentration and the qualification rates were calculated accordingly. When the bacterial concentration≤100 CFU/ mL, the water samples were considered to be qualified. Waterline tubes of 1 cm were collected before and after the 25 weeks of disinfection with hydrogen peroxide. Biofilms in the waterline tube were observed under scanning electron microscope.

Results

A total of 352 water samples were collected. Eight water samples were collected before disinfection with hydrogen peroxide, with the median of bacterial concentration being 3140 CFU/mL. On the first day of disinfection with hydrogen peroxide, the median bacterial concentration in dental treatment water was 7.5 CFU/mL. There was a significant difference between the bacterial concentration of the water samples before the disinfection and that after the disinfection (P=0.012). A total of 344 water samples were collected after the disinfection, with the median bacterial concentrations for air/water syringes and high-speed handpieces being 11 CFU/mL and 11CFU/mL and the qualified rates being 83.7% and 82.0%, respectively. There was no significant difference in bacterial concentration or the qualification rates. During week 1 through week 9 of the disinfection, the qualification rates of the dental treatment water always exceeded 80% in 8 weeks, with week 3 being the exception. In the two four-week disinfection periods of week 14 through week 17 and week 18 through week 21, the qualification rate was maintained at above 80% for only the first two weeks and started to decrease from the third week. Biofilm morphology was observed under scanning electron microscope. Before the disinfection, the biofilm was found to be a dense structure and the mixture of a large number of bacteria. After 25 weeks of the disinfection, the biofilm structure appeared to be loose and did not show consistent characteristics of a large number of bacteria retained.

Conclusion

Periodic disinfection combined with continuous disinfection using hydrogen peroxide can effectively control contamination in dental unit waterlines. But the cycles of periodic disinfection and the concentration of hydrogen peroxide for continuous disinfection should be further discussed according to the actual clinical situation.

Reducing the Risk of COVID-19 Transmission in Dental Offices: A Review

The COVID-19 epidemic has become a major public health challenge around the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of August 2020 there are more than 833,556 dead and over 24,587,513 people infected around the world. This pandemic has adversely affected many professions around the globe, including dentistry. COVID-19, caused by the Corona virus family, is transmitted mainly by direct contact with an infected person or through the spread of aerosol and droplets. Dentistry by nature is considered to be one of the most vulnerable professions with regards to the high risk of transmission between the dentist, dental team, and patients; therefore, a protocol for infection control and the prevention and spreading of the COVID-19 virus in dental settings is urgently needed. This article reviews essential knowledge about this virus and its transmission and recommends preventive methods based on existing scientific research and recommendations to prevent the spread of this virus in dental offices and clinics.

Microbial Contamination of Dental Unit Waterlines and Potential Risk of Infection: A Narrative Review

Several studies have revealed that dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) are often contaminated by large numbers of various micro-organisms (bacteria, fungi, protozoa, viruses). Microbial contamination in DUWLs may originate from the mains water piped into the dental unit, the suck-back of patients' saliva into the line due to the lack of adequate valves, and contamination from bottled water systems. Some of the main determinants of microbial contamination in DUWLs are: a very small lumen size (0.5-2 mm) of the tubing used, high surface-to-volume ratio (6:1), low throughput and the materials of which the tubing is made, water stagnation outside of working hours. The environmental conditions present inside the conduits of the dental unit may facilitate the proliferation of micro-organisms and the consequent formation of biofilm on the interior surface of the pipes of DUWLs. During the use of handpieces, particularly high-speed rotating instruments, a spray is thrown up in the form of aerosols or spatters containing biological material (saliva, blood and dental plaque) and micro-organisms. This means that the health of both dental staff and patients could be at risk of infection. The risk of cross-infections in dental settings can be tackled by implementing combined interventions to prevent the contamination of DUWLs.

Chlorine-based DUWL disinfectant leads to a different microbial composition of water derived biofilms compared to H2O2-based chemical disinfectants in vitro

Background

Biofilm formation in dental unit waterlines (DUWL) may lead to health risks for dental staff and patients. Therefore, dental unit waterlines need to be disinfected, for instance by using chemical disinfectants. However, the application of chemical disinfectants may lead to the selection of specific microorganisms. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the microbial composition of water-derived biofilms, after a continuous exposure to maintenance doses of commercially available chemical disinfectants, in vitro.

Methods

The AAA-model was used to grow water derived biofilms. The biofilms were subjected to the maintenance dose of each disinfectant. To determine the microbial composition, the V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene was sequenced. The sequences were clustered in operational taxonomic units (OTUs).

Results

The bacterial composition of biofilms in all treatment groups differed significantly (PERMANOVA F = 4.441, p = 0.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed Anoxyl treated biofilms were significantly different from all groups (p = 0.0001). In the Anoxyl-treated biofilms, the relative abundance of Comamonadaceae and Sphingopyxis was high compared to the Dentosept, Green and Clean and Oxygenal groups.

Conclusion

We concluded that exposure to low doses of the chlorine-based chemical disinfectant Anoxyl led to a substantially different composition of water derived biofilms compared to biofilms exposed to H₂O₂-based chemical disinfectants.

Heterogeneity in the efficacy of dental chemical disinfectants on water-derived biofilms in vitro

Conditions in dental unit waterlines are favourable for biofilm growth and contamination of dental unit water. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of several chemical disinfectants on bacteria in a biofilm model. Water-derived biofilms were grown in a static biofilm model (Amsterdam Active Attachment model), using two growth media. Biofilms were challenged with Alpron/Bilpron, Anoxyl, Citrisil, Dentosept, Green & Clean, ICX and Oxygenal in shock dose and maintenance doses. The concentration and the composition of the chemical disinfectants influenced the number of culturable bacteria in the biofilms. The application of a single shock dose followed by a low dose of the same chemical disinfectants resulted in the greatest suppression of viable bacteria in the biofilms. Exposure to Citrisil and ICX consistently resulted in failure to control the biofilms, while Alpron/Bilpron had a substantial and relevant effect on the number of bacteria in the biofilms.

A novel micellar formulation based on natural plant extracts enhances the efficacy of hydrogen peroxide against biofilms of Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa

The antibacterial efficacy of hydrogen peroxide encapsulated in micelles (mH₂O₂) against biofilms was compared with that of hydrogen peroxide alone and of three commercially available aqueous biocides. The activity of mH₂O₂ on 24-h biofilms of reference strains of Staphylococcus spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was tested in a static microtiter plate model. The biofilms were incubated with mH₂O₂ (17% v/v H₂O₂, 2% lactic acid, 0.3% phytoextract, H₂O) and its individual ingredients and compared with three aqueous biocides at different concentrations and times of exposure. After 5-min exposure, 10% mH₂O₂ (corresponding to 1.7% v/v H₂O₂) achieved > 8 log₁₀ reductions against all the test strains, while 1.7% H₂O₂ achieved a maximum of 1.5 log₁₀ reduction. After 5-min exposure, none of the commercially available biocides tested showed themselves to be capable of completely eliminating the test strains embedded in biofilms. Hydrogen peroxide encapsulated in micelles demonstrated enhanced activity against planktonic cells and biofilms of Staphylococcus spp. and P. aeruginosa.