PubMed · 1742113
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D C Forbes. 1991-11-09. Equipment malfunction.. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807687
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
AIM: The present study to investigate the use, care and maintenance of light units in everyday clinical practice was undertaken to complement light unit emission surveys, with a view to developing a protocol for light unit use and care in everyday clinical practice. METHOD: The investigative work comprised a survey of selected practices in the Blackburn area with follow-up practice visits to examine light units in situ, and to glean additional information in respect of light unit use and care in the practice environment. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 54 of 77 selected practices--a 70% response, including information in relation to 164 light units. Subsequently, 100 (61%) of these light units were examined in 42 practices according to a standardised protocol. The use and care of the light units included in the study was found to be very variable. In addition to finding that 28 (28%) had inadequate light output (<300 mW/cm2), many of the light units were found to be damaged or repaired (47, 47%). Thirty five (35%) of the light units inspected were found to have varying amounts of material adherent to the light guide exit portal. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that practitioners should address practical aspects of their increasing reliance on light units, and to this end, guidance is offered on visible light curing and the care and maintenance of light units.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the flammability of five brands of dental procedure glove. DESIGN: A total of ten gloves of each brand (Biogel-D, Premier Protectors, Roeko-D, Safeskin Satin Plus and Schottlander Low Allergy) underwent flammability testing. Five of these were tested as supplied (unwashed) and five following the application of the hand disinfectant Hydrex (washed). Each glove was stretched over a metal frame and the time to ignition, when exposed to a standardised butane flame, recorded. In addition, the thickness of each glove was also assessed by micrometer measurement. RESULTS: All the gloves tested ignited in less than 2.5 seconds. Two way analysis of variance revealed significant effects of glove type (P< 0.001) and treatment (P< 0.05), together with a significant interaction of these factors (P < 0.05), upon the ignition time. Washing Roeko-D gloves with Hydrex significantly (P< 0.01) retarded the ignition time compared with those in the unwashed state. Both the glove thickness and material type appeared to be related to ignition time. CONCLUSION: The work presented here demonstrates the acute and varying flammability of a range of dental procedure gloves. It should serve as a reminder to those who routinely use open flames whilst gloved of the dangers of this practice.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.