Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 33  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 30-36
Current overview for chemical disinfection of dental impressions and models based on its criteria of usage: A microbiological study


1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Dental Sciences, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, SIMATS, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Microbiology, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ashwin Mathew George
Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, SIMATS, No. 162, Poonamallee High Road, Velappanchavadi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_623_20

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of two proven chemical disinfectants, glutaraldehyde and povidone iodine on dental impression and models by determining the reduction in the microbial load, and to compare changes in the physical properties of the models after adding the disinfectants. Materials and Methods: Irreversible hydrocolloid upper impressions of 90 patients were made and divided into 3 groups of 30 samples each; Group A––Control group; Impressions were run under clean tap water before pouring the model. Group B––2% Glutaraldehyde sprayed on the impression and left in situ for 10 min before pouring the model. Group C –10 ml of (5%) povidone iodine incorporated into the gypsum before pouring the model. Models from all three groups were subjected to microbiological assessment at three different time intervals, T0––24 h, T1––1 month and T2––3 months of storage by comparing the colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria and fungi. The compressive strength of 5 models from each group was also analyzed in Newton's/mm2. Results: 2% Glutaraldehyde proved more effective than povidone iodine after 24 h of storage (T1), however at the end of 1 month (T1) and 3 months (T2) the Povidone group showed the maximum disinfection. Both the disinfectants caused a reduction in the compressive strength of the model with the povidone iodine group showing the maximum reduction. Conclusion: Although povidone iodine was the most effective disinfectant after 3 months, it showed a significant reduction in the compressive strength and caused discoloration of the model. 2% Glutaraldehyde proved to be the choice of disinfectant with minimal adverse effects.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed750    
    Printed48    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded32    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal