PDF icon Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2013; 2(03): 246-251
DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.115999
Original Article

A study of different modes of disinfection and their effect on bacterial load in dental unit waterlines

Vatsala Singh
Department of Periodontology, Darshan Dental College and Hospital, Loyara, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Chaitra Nagaraja
Department of Periodontology, Darshan Dental College and Hospital, Loyara, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
,
Shital A. Hungund
Department of Periodontology, Darshan Dental College and Hospital, Loyara, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available ateRef
 PDF Download Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effect of disinfection of dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) on bacterial load using disinfection methods and agents like 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), time-dependent flushing (1 min, 2 min), and using distilled water and tap water as water sources. Materials and Methods: Four dental units were taken: Unit A contained 0.12% CHX, Unit B contained distilled water, Unit C contained tap water, and Unit D included flushing for 1 and 2 min. A total of 36 water samples were collected in 2 weeks. One sample of tap water from basin was taken as study control. One sample each from Unit A, B, and C and 2 samples from Unit D (1 min and 2 min flushing) were taken as baseline samples. Samples were collected three times a week and assessed for total viable count (TVC) and types of organisms present. Results: For Unit A, no growth of microorganisms was observed. Flushing for 1 min and 2 min showed variable TVC. No significant difference was seen in TVC of units B, C, and D in comparison to the baseline samples. Conclusions: It was found that 0.12% CHX was very effective in controlling DUWL contamination. Adhering to a recommended 2 min flushing regimen can reduce the bacterial counts, but is not a reliable means of disinfection.

Keywords

Biofilms - dental equipment - infection control


Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

© 2013. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: Survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev 2002;15:167-93.
  • 2 Mills SE. The dental unit waterlines controversy: Defusing the myths, defining the solutions. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1427-41.
  • 3 Pankhurst CL. Risk assessment of dental unit waterline contamination. Prim Dent Care 2003;10:5-10.
  • 4 Ajami B, Ghazvini K, Movahhed T, Ariaee N, Shakeri M, Makarem S. Contamination of a dental unit water line system by legionella pneumophila in the mashhad school of dentistry in 2009. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2012;14:376-8.
  • 5 Clark A. Bacterial colonization of dental units and the nasal flora of dental personnel. Proc R Soc Med 1974;67:1269-70.
  • 6 Atlas RM, Williams JF, Huntington MK. Legionella contamination of dental-unit waters. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996;62:1491.
  • 7 Schiff J, Suter LS, Gourley RD, Sutliff WD. Flavobacterium infection as a cause of bacterial endocarditis. Report of a case, bacteriologic studies, and review of the literature. Ann Intern Med 1961;55:499-506.
  • 8 Morrison AJ Jr, Shulman JA. Community-acquired bloodstream infection caused by Pseudomonas paucimobilis: Case report and review of literature. J Clin Microbiol 1986;24:853-5.
  • 9 Martin MV. The significance of bacterial contamination of dental unit water systems. Br Dent J 1987;163:152-4.
  • 10 Sorrell WB, White LV. Acute bacterial endocarditis caused by a variant of the genus Herrellea. Am J Clin Pathol 1952;23:134-8.
  • 11 Szymanska J, Sitkowaska J, Dutkiewicz J. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines. Ann Agric Environ Med 2008;15:173-9.
  • 12 Kohno S, Kawata T, Kaku M, Fuita T, Tsutsui K, Ohtani J, et al. Bactericidal effects of acidic electrolysed water on dental unit waterlines. Jpn J Infec Dis 2004;57:52-4.
  • 13 Liaqat I, Sabri AN. In vitro efficacy of biocides against dental unit waterline biofilm bacteria. Asian J Exp Sci 2009;23:67-75.
  • 14 Murdoch-Kinch CA, Andrews NL, Atwan S, Jude R, Gleason MJ, Molinari JA. Comparison of dental water quality management procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:1235-43.
  • 15 Whitehouse RL, Peters E, Lizotte J, Lilge C. Influence of biofilms on microbial contamination in dental unit water. J Dent 1991;19:290-5.
  • 16 Putnins EE, Di Giovanni D, Bhullar AS. Dental unit waterline contamination and its possible implications during periodontal surgery. J Periodontol 2001;72:393-400.
  • 17 Edelstein PH. Control of Legionella in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 1986;8:109-15.
  • 18 Dahlén G, Alenäs-Jarl E, Hjort G. Water quality in water lines of dental units in the public dental health service in Göteborg, Sweden. Swed Dent J 2009;33:161-72.
  • 19 Göksay D, Cotuk A, Zeybek Z. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines in Istanbul, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 2008;147:265-9.
  • 20 Walker JT, Bradshaw DJ, Finney M, Fulford MR, Frandsen E, Østergaard E, et al. Microbiological evaluation of dental unit water systems in general dental practice in Europe. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:412-8.