ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015
Use of Clinical UV Chamber to Disinfect Dental Impressions: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and design requirements of UV light cabinets for disinfection of exchangeable non-sterilizable "dental objects".Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial effect of ultraviolet radiation on alginate and condensation silicone impressions compared to hypochlorite.Dental research journal · 2025Article
- Effect of Ultraviolet C light disinfection on the dimensional stability of dental impression materials: A scoping review of the literature.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Effects of Various Disinfection Methods on the Material Properties of Silicone Dental Impressions of Different Types and Viscosities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Hospital surface disinfection using ultraviolet germicidal irradiation technology: A review.Healthcare technology letters · 2022Review
- Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of UVC Radiation, Gaseous Ozone, and Liquid Chemicals Used for Disinfection of Silicone Dental Impression Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Disinfection of Impression Materials with Glutaraldehyde, Ultraviolet Radiation, and Autoclave: A Comparative Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2021Article
- Effect of chemical, microwave irradiation, steam autoclave, ultraviolet light radiation, ozone and electrolyzed oxidizing water disinfection on properties of impression materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis study.The Saudi dental journal · 2020Review
- A simple and effective method for addition silicone impression disinfection.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2019Article
- Innovation by Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Technology: A Look at Infection Prevention in Dental Settings.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- Evaluation of three different decontamination techniques on biofilm formation, and on physical and chemical properties of resin composites.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials · 2018Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Chemical Disinfectants and Ultraviolet Disinfection on Dimensional Stability of the Polyvinyl Siloxane Impressions.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDental impressions are potential source of infection in a prosthodontic practice. Risk of transmission of infection through saliva, blood etc is considered as hazard for both dentist as well as dental auxiliary staff. A number of methods are currently employed for disinfecting the impressions which are technique sensitive and time consuming. This study focuses on disinfecting impression using dental UV chamber which is commonly employed for storing sterilized instruments.
aimThe aim of this invitro study was to evaluate the use of clinical UV chamber to disinfect various impression materials at different time intervals and its comparison with 2% glutaraldehyde using standard immersion technique. MATERIALS AND
methodsTotal sample size of 180 specimens was taken from three different impression materials. The impressions were made from 30 dentulous subjects. A total of ten impressions were made for each impression material i.e. alginate, addition silicone and polyether impression material. Six punch samples were taken from each impression. Out of 6 punch sample, one was kept as control, second was disinfected by immersing in freshly prepared 2% glutaraldehyde solution for 10 minutes and remaining four were exposed to UV rays for 3 minutes, 6 minutes, 10 minutes and 15 minutes using dental UV chamber. Amount of disinfection achieved was evaluated by counting the colonies over the culture plates with the help of digital colony.
resultsThe results showed that the mean CFUs for alginate were found to be i.e. 11797.40 ± 5989.73 (mean ± SD). The mean CFUs for addition silicone impression material was found 7095.40 with a standard deviation of 4268.83 and the mean CFUs for polyether impression material was found to be 2168.92 ± 1676 (mean ± SD).
conclusionFor alginate and addition silicone impression material, disinfection was achieved on exposure to UV rays for a period of 10 minutes. However, for polyether impression material 3 minutes of exposure to UV rays was sufficient to cause complete disinfection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.