Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11317837

Selecting a sterilisation subcontractor.

M Donawa
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Medical device manufacturers who need contract sterilisation services sometimes lack extensive knowledge of the technical aspects of sterilisation processes. For this reason, they may have problems assessing quality requirements for subcontractor sterilisation services. This article discusses important quality issues that should be considered when selecting a sterilisation subcontractor.

Explore related subjects

CertificationContract ServicesEquipment ContaminationEquipment SafetyEquipment and SuppliesEuropeHumansProgram EvaluationSensitivity and SpecificitySterilizationUnited StatesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Donawa. 2001. Selecting a sterilisation subcontractor.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11317837/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗