ArticleBMC oral health2024
Exploring sterilizer performance through external biological indicator testing: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuality assurance policies mitigate the risk of nosocomial infections from dental office instrument sterilization by assessing sterilizer performance through biological indicator (BIs) testing. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of failed sterilization cycles and their causes of failure for a period of eight years through database analysis of a quality assurance laboratory in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada.
methodsA database of BIs (n = 198,771) performed by an independent quality assurance laboratory from 2015 to 2022 was analyzed. Dental offices (n = 362) inserted Sporview
resultsThe overall failure rate throughout the study was 0.20%, and it decreased gradually from 0.51% (2015) to 0.15% (2022). On average, retests were conducted within 2 days of failure notification. The preferred method of processing was steam sterilization (98%), which had a steadily increasing utilization over time and displays a statistically lower failure rate (0.20%) as opposed to dry heat (1.30%) and chemical vapour (1.40%) sterilizers. Most BI failures were attributable to human error (91.80%), and equipment failures were significantly more likely to occur with dry heat or chemical vapour sterilizers (p < .001).
conclusionThis study significantly contributes to the understanding of dental sterilizer performance in Canada. The low and decreasing sterilizer failure rates over the study period indicate safe dental office procedures and reduced potential for disease transmissions. The study highlights the effectiveness of steam sterilizers with remarkably low failure rates, while human error remains the primary cause of failures. Further research should focus on identifying factors leading to human error and interventions to minimize sterilization failures in dental settings.
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.