Disinfection of Bacterially Contaminated Hydrophilic PVS Impression Materials

Emad Wadie Estafanous, Charles John Palenik, Jeffrey Platt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated disinfection of bacterially contaminated hydrophilic polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) and polyether impressions. Materials and Methods: Four light-bodied PVS (Examix, Genie, Take 1, Aquasil) and one polyether (Impregum) impression materials were evaluated using three disinfectants (EcoTru [EnviroSystems], ProSpray [Certol], and bleach [diluted 1:9]) as spray and immersion disinfections for 10-minute exposures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Salmonella choleraesius ATCC 10708, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 was the microbial challenge. Test specimens were prepared using aluminum molds with ten tapered cones. Mucin covered each cone, followed by 0.01 mL of each bacterium. Impressions were made using low viscosity impression material that was injected over the cones and filled custom trays. One-half of the impressions were spray disinfected, while the others underwent immersion disinfection. Trays that were contaminated but not disinfected served as positive controls, while those not bacterially contaminated or disinfected served as negative controls. The impressions were poured with Silky Rock Die Stone, and after setting, two cones were placed within a sterile capsule and triturated into powder. Four milliliters of TRIS buffer (0.05 M, pH 7.0) containing sodium thiosulfate (0.0055% w/v) were poured in each tube. After mixing, the solution was serially diluted and spread-plated onto selective agars. After incubation, colony counting occurred. Results: No viable bacteria transferred to casts from either spray- or immersion-disinfected impressions. Negative controls produced no microbial colonies. Positive controls produced on average 3.35 × 10 5 bacterial cells. Conclusion: Results suggest the methods used could disinfect contaminated impression materials. Microbial transfer from nondisinfected impressions to cones approached 33.5%.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)16-21
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Prosthodontics
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

Disinfection
Immersion
Bacteria
Disinfectants
Mucins
Aluminum
Viscosity
Salmonella
Powders
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Agar
Capsules
Staphylococcus aureus
Buffers
Fungi
Light

Keywords

  • Bacterial contamination
  • Disinfection
  • Disinfection time
  • Impression materials
  • Prosthodontics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Disinfection of Bacterially Contaminated Hydrophilic PVS Impression Materials. / Estafanous, Emad Wadie; Palenik, Charles John; Platt, Jeffrey.

In: Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 21, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 16-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Estafanous, Emad Wadie ; Palenik, Charles John ; Platt, Jeffrey. / Disinfection of Bacterially Contaminated Hydrophilic PVS Impression Materials. In: Journal of Prosthodontics. 2012 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 16-21.
@article{b9d6861da51f4b0ca8e7b3c1ab4c419d,
title = "Disinfection of Bacterially Contaminated Hydrophilic PVS Impression Materials",
abstract = "Purpose: This study evaluated disinfection of bacterially contaminated hydrophilic polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) and polyether impressions. Materials and Methods: Four light-bodied PVS (Examix, Genie, Take 1, Aquasil) and one polyether (Impregum) impression materials were evaluated using three disinfectants (EcoTru [EnviroSystems], ProSpray [Certol], and bleach [diluted 1:9]) as spray and immersion disinfections for 10-minute exposures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Salmonella choleraesius ATCC 10708, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 was the microbial challenge. Test specimens were prepared using aluminum molds with ten tapered cones. Mucin covered each cone, followed by 0.01 mL of each bacterium. Impressions were made using low viscosity impression material that was injected over the cones and filled custom trays. One-half of the impressions were spray disinfected, while the others underwent immersion disinfection. Trays that were contaminated but not disinfected served as positive controls, while those not bacterially contaminated or disinfected served as negative controls. The impressions were poured with Silky Rock Die Stone, and after setting, two cones were placed within a sterile capsule and triturated into powder. Four milliliters of TRIS buffer (0.05 M, pH 7.0) containing sodium thiosulfate (0.0055{\%} w/v) were poured in each tube. After mixing, the solution was serially diluted and spread-plated onto selective agars. After incubation, colony counting occurred. Results: No viable bacteria transferred to casts from either spray- or immersion-disinfected impressions. Negative controls produced no microbial colonies. Positive controls produced on average 3.35 × 10 5 bacterial cells. Conclusion: Results suggest the methods used could disinfect contaminated impression materials. Microbial transfer from nondisinfected impressions to cones approached 33.5{\%}.",
keywords = "Bacterial contamination, Disinfection, Disinfection time, Impression materials, Prosthodontics",
author = "Estafanous, {Emad Wadie} and Palenik, {Charles John} and Jeffrey Platt",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00788.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "16--21",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "1059-941X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disinfection of Bacterially Contaminated Hydrophilic PVS Impression Materials

AU - Estafanous, Emad Wadie

AU - Palenik, Charles John

AU - Platt, Jeffrey

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - Purpose: This study evaluated disinfection of bacterially contaminated hydrophilic polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) and polyether impressions. Materials and Methods: Four light-bodied PVS (Examix, Genie, Take 1, Aquasil) and one polyether (Impregum) impression materials were evaluated using three disinfectants (EcoTru [EnviroSystems], ProSpray [Certol], and bleach [diluted 1:9]) as spray and immersion disinfections for 10-minute exposures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Salmonella choleraesius ATCC 10708, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 was the microbial challenge. Test specimens were prepared using aluminum molds with ten tapered cones. Mucin covered each cone, followed by 0.01 mL of each bacterium. Impressions were made using low viscosity impression material that was injected over the cones and filled custom trays. One-half of the impressions were spray disinfected, while the others underwent immersion disinfection. Trays that were contaminated but not disinfected served as positive controls, while those not bacterially contaminated or disinfected served as negative controls. The impressions were poured with Silky Rock Die Stone, and after setting, two cones were placed within a sterile capsule and triturated into powder. Four milliliters of TRIS buffer (0.05 M, pH 7.0) containing sodium thiosulfate (0.0055% w/v) were poured in each tube. After mixing, the solution was serially diluted and spread-plated onto selective agars. After incubation, colony counting occurred. Results: No viable bacteria transferred to casts from either spray- or immersion-disinfected impressions. Negative controls produced no microbial colonies. Positive controls produced on average 3.35 × 10 5 bacterial cells. Conclusion: Results suggest the methods used could disinfect contaminated impression materials. Microbial transfer from nondisinfected impressions to cones approached 33.5%.

AB - Purpose: This study evaluated disinfection of bacterially contaminated hydrophilic polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) and polyether impressions. Materials and Methods: Four light-bodied PVS (Examix, Genie, Take 1, Aquasil) and one polyether (Impregum) impression materials were evaluated using three disinfectants (EcoTru [EnviroSystems], ProSpray [Certol], and bleach [diluted 1:9]) as spray and immersion disinfections for 10-minute exposures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 15442, Salmonella choleraesius ATCC 10708, and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 was the microbial challenge. Test specimens were prepared using aluminum molds with ten tapered cones. Mucin covered each cone, followed by 0.01 mL of each bacterium. Impressions were made using low viscosity impression material that was injected over the cones and filled custom trays. One-half of the impressions were spray disinfected, while the others underwent immersion disinfection. Trays that were contaminated but not disinfected served as positive controls, while those not bacterially contaminated or disinfected served as negative controls. The impressions were poured with Silky Rock Die Stone, and after setting, two cones were placed within a sterile capsule and triturated into powder. Four milliliters of TRIS buffer (0.05 M, pH 7.0) containing sodium thiosulfate (0.0055% w/v) were poured in each tube. After mixing, the solution was serially diluted and spread-plated onto selective agars. After incubation, colony counting occurred. Results: No viable bacteria transferred to casts from either spray- or immersion-disinfected impressions. Negative controls produced no microbial colonies. Positive controls produced on average 3.35 × 10 5 bacterial cells. Conclusion: Results suggest the methods used could disinfect contaminated impression materials. Microbial transfer from nondisinfected impressions to cones approached 33.5%.

KW - Bacterial contamination

KW - Disinfection

KW - Disinfection time

KW - Impression materials

KW - Prosthodontics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855967317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855967317&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00788.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00788.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22040354

AN - SCOPUS:84855967317

VL - 21

SP - 16

EP - 21

JO - Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 1059-941X

IS - 1

ER -