ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2021
Disinfection of Impression Materials with Glutaraldehyde, Ultraviolet Radiation, and Autoclave: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of dental health professionals toward dental impression disinfection protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia- a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of UVC Radiation, Gaseous Ozone, and Liquid Chemicals Used for Disinfection of Silicone Dental Impression Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study was conducted to compare various methods of disinfection of impression materials such as glutaraldehyde, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and autoclave. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present study was conducted on eighty alginate impression materials which were disinfectant with 2.2% glutaraldehyde, UV radiation, and autoclave. The pre- and postbacterial count was assessed.
resultsThe mean premicrobial contamination in Group I was 362.2 106 colony-forming unit (CFU)/ml, in Group II was 306.4 106 CFU/ml, and in Group III was 336.2 106 CFU/ml. The mean postmicrobial contamination in Group I was 65.2 106 CFU/ml, in Group II was 76.7 106 CFU/ml, and in Group III was 28.4 106 CFU/ml.
conclusionThe authors found that autoclave proved to be better in terms of reduction in bacterial colonies as compared to glutaraldehyde and UV radiation.
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.