@article{a84ae36cf4ce44f1b6540c9f5d147561,
title = "Effectiveness of a professional formula disinfectant for irreversible hydrocolloid",
abstract = "In this study, the effectiveness of Professional Lysol (PL) disinfectant in both its spray and solution forms was evaluated as a surface disinfectant for irreversible hydrocolloid (IH) impressions. Sixteen impressions of a typodont were made with IH, immersed in a microbial broth, and then rinsed in running tap water. The impressions were then treated as follows: four were immersed in PL for 2.5 minutes; four were sprayed by PL and stored for 10 minutes; four were immersed in 2% glutaraldehyde for 10 minutes; four were untreated. Pretest plates showed an average of 421 colonies per plate (c/p). The glutaraldehyde group showed 0.00 c/p. The PL spray group showed 1.75 c/p. The PL immersion group showed 19.00 c/p and showed evidence of surface deterioration in the IH. The untreated group showed 426.25 c/p.",
author = "Kaplan, {Barry A.} and Goldstein, {Gary R.} and Robert Boylan",
note = "Funding Information: T he increased public awareness of infectious diseases such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and hepatitis B have led to broad and sweeping changes in all health care delivery sectors. The ramifications of these changes are manifested in all phases of dentistry, from the barrier techniques used to treat patients to the barrier techniques used in the dental laboratory. The American Dental Association (ADA){\textquoteright} and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC){\textquoteright} have established guidelines that require all dental personnel to wear gloves, mask, and glasses while treating patients. Guidelines have also been established to limit cross contamination during dental laboratory prc)ce-dures such as impression disinfection and sterilization.{\textquoteright} Samaranayake et al.” have shown that irreversible hydrocolloid impressions retain two to three times more bat-teria than elastomeric impressions, with retention of hac-teria on dentate impressions greater than on edentulous impressions. Tobias et a1.4 reported that irreversible hydrocolloids that are preimpregnated with a disinfectant, such as didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride, reduce the overall quantity of bacteria on the impression; however, they showed Presented at the Academy of Prosthodontics meeting, Lexington, Ky., May 1992. Supported in part by a grant from the Greater New York Academy of Prosthodontics Research Foundation. aPrivate Practice, Bloomfield, N. J. bDirector of Prosthodontic Research, IXvision of Restor:!tive Dentistry and Prosthodontic Sciences. CAssociate Professor of Microbiology. Copyright ” 1994 by The Editorial Council of Tm tl~~~~~~ , OF PROSTHETIC DENTIWKY. 0022-3913/94/$3.00 + 0. 10/l/53654 weak antibacterial act.ivity against Candida albicans and mixed bacterial samples and no activity against. Pseudomonas aeruginosa.{\textquoteright} Tyler et al.{\textquoteright} showed that pre-impregnated irreversible hydrocolloid materials were not virucidal. Preimpregnated irreversible hydrocolloids (with no subsequent chemical disinfection) did not demonstrate greater dimensional stability than conventional irreversible hydrocolloids immersed in diluted 2 5{\textquoteleft}; glutaraldehyde and may therefore only serve to save disinfection time.” Certain diluted 2 % glutaraldehydes (2 {\textquoteleft}; glutaraldehyde with phenolic buffer 1:16 and/or 2”, acid-potentiated glutaraldehyde diluted 1:4) will not significantly alter the dimensional accuracy of casts recovered from impressions immersed for 10 minutes.{\textquoteleft}-g The 2{\textquoteright}; acid-potentiated glutaraldehydes have been reported to improve the surface quality of casts recovered from irreversible hydrocolloid and elastomeric impression materials.“{\textquoteleft}~ I1 Bond et al.{\textquoteleft}” showed that 25{\textquoteright}; glutaraldehyde with a phosphate-bicarbonate buffer and 2% glutaraldehyde with 7“c phenol inactivated hepatitis B virus in a test tube after a lo-minute contact time. It has also been recommended that glutaraldehydes should not be used as a spray, because inhalation of the aldehyde vapor may be toxic to tissues.“{\textquoteright} A 0.5% hypochlorite solution used as a lo-minute immersions or spray with lo-minute storage{\textquoteright}” will not significantly alter the accuracy of the casts recovered from the impression. In contrast, other studies demonstrated statistically significant changes in dimensional stability when the impression was immersed in 0.5 “; hypochlorite{\textquoteright}” or 1 I, hypochloritel{\textquoteright} for 10 minutes. Tullner et al.{\textquoteleft}” suggested that the dimensional changes of the impression may depend on the brand of irreversible hydrocolloid and hypochlorite combination. Look et al.“{\textquoteright} demonstrated viral Copyright: Copyright 2014 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",
year = "1994",
month = jun,
doi = "10.1016/0022-3913(94)90445-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "71",
pages = "603--606",
journal = "The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",
}