Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39188490›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection Protocols for Dental Impressions in Prosthodontics.

Subhash Sonkesriya, Ghanshyam Gaur, Akanksha Maheshwari, Arun Kumar Ashahiya, Simran Kaur Aulakh, Amit Kumar, Bhumika Kamal Badiyani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Subhash SonkesriyaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Government College of Dentistry, Indore, IND.
Ghanshyam GaurDepartment of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Government College of Dentistry, Indore, IND.
Akanksha MaheshwariDepartment of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Government College of Dentistry, Indore, IND.
Arun Kumar AshahiyaDepartment of Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, Government College of Dentistry, Indore, IND.
Simran Kaur AulakhDepartment of Dentistry, Y.M.T Dental College and Hospital, Kharghar, IND.
Amit KumarDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, InterDental Multispeciality Dental Clinic, Mumbai, IND.
Bhumika Kamal BadiyaniDepartment of Public Health Dentistry, InterDental Multispeciality Dental Clinic, Mumbai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn prosthodontics, dental impressions are essential for creating precise dental restorations. However, these impressions are susceptible to microbial contamination, which can pose a risk of infection to patients. Consequently, effective disinfection methods are crucial to prevent postoperative infections. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of various disinfection techniques for dental impressions used in prosthodontics. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 148 poured dental impressions were randomized into three disinfection groups: immersed in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% glutaraldehyde, or 0.2% chlorhexidine solution. The bacterial contamination was evaluated by direct colony-forming unit (CFU) counting, while the dimensional accuracy and surface detail duplication of each resin sample were determined as physical properties. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Either analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the option for post-hoc or non-parametric tests was used to investigate and compare the efficacy of the better disinfection protocols where the p-value was considered significant if less than 0.05.

resultsGlutaraldehyde showed the lowest mean CFU count (2.5 log10 CFUs), followed by sodium hypochlorite (3.2 log10 CFUs) and chlorhexidine (3.5 log10 CFUs). All disinfection protocols were able to significantly reduce microbial contamination when compared with the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the physical property assessment demonstrated acceptable dimensional accuracy in all tested protocols, with slight differences recorded between them regarding the reproduction of surface detail. More specifically, the mean dimensional deviation was in the range between 0.02 and 0.04 mm, while scores for surface detail reproduction ranged from 2 to 4. The ANOVA results revealed significant differences in microbial contamination levels (F(2, 145) = 5.72, p = 0.007) and dimensional accuracy (F(2, 145) = 3.45, p = 0.032) between the various disinfection protocols.

conclusionThis study enlightens the effective sterilization protocol to be adopted in prosthodontics for dental impressions. Glutaraldehyde was most effective in microbial reduction, while sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine were equally effective. Therefore, clinicians must be vigilant in assessing the type of microbial flora that can be encountered during prosthodontic procedures while choosing disinfection protocols for patient safety and quality of impressions.

Indexed as

dental impressionsdimensional accuracydisinfection protocolsmicrobial contaminationprosthodonticssurface detail reproduction

Identifiers

PMID39188490
PMCPMC11346668

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.