Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36846444›Full record

SynthesisPeerJ2023

Disinfection efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde and their effects on the dimensional stability and surface properties of dental impressions: a systematic review.

Yuan Qiu, Jiawei Xu, Yuedan Xu, Zhiwei Shi, Yinlin Wang, Ling Zhang, Baiping Fu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yuan Qiu *Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Jiawei Xu *Stomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yuedan XuStomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Zhiwei ShiStomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yinlin WangStomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Ling ZhangStomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Baiping FuStomatology Hospital, School of Stomatology, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Dental Materials and Devices for Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Research Center, Zhejiang Provincial Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Research of Zhejiang Province, Cancer Center of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the disinfection efficacy of the two most frequently used disinfectants, sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde, and their effects on the surface properties of four different dental impression materials. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in four databases until May 1st, 2022 to select the studies which evaluated disinfection efficacy of disinfectants or surface properties of dental impressions after chemical disinfection. Main results: A total of 50 studies were included through electronic database searches. Of these studies, 13 studies evaluated disinfection efficacy of two disinfectants, and 39 studies evaluated their effects on the surface properties of dental impressions. A 10-minute disinfection with 0.5-1% sodium hypochlorite or 2% glutaraldehyde was effective to inactivate oral flora and common oral pathogenic bacteria. With regard to surface properties, chemical disinfection within 30 min could not alter the dimensional stability, detail reproduction and wettability of alginate and polyether impressions. However, the wettability of addition silicone impressions and the dimensional stability of condensation silicone impressions were adversely affected after chemical disinfection, while other surface properties of these two dental impressions were out of significant influence. Conclusions: Alginate impressions are strongly recommended to be disinfected with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite using spray disinfection method for 10 min. Meanwhile, elastomeric impressions are strongly recommended to be disinfected with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite or 2% glutaraldehyde using immersion disinfection method for 10 min, however, polyether impression should be disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde.

Indexed as

DisinfectantsSodium HypochloriteAlginatesBacteriaDisinfectionGlutaralSiliconesSurface PropertiesTime FactorsAlginatesDisinfectantsGlutaralSiliconesSodium HypochloriteDental impression materialsDisinfectionEfficacySurface properties

Identifiers

PMID36846444
PMCPMC9948754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.