PubMed · 8409020
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S I Schwarz. 1993. Sterilize it!. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1993.0173
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: It has been demonstrated that contamination of the insides of high-speed dental turbines occurs and that bacteria as well as viruses may remain infectious when expelled from such turbines during subsequent use. Consequently, it has been widely recommended that a high-speed turbine be sterilized after each patient. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of steam autoclaving on a high-speed dental turbine with a contaminated turbine chamber. STUDY DESIGN: Streptococcus salivarius and endospores of Bacillus stearothermophilus were used as test organisms to determine the effectiveness of 4 different small non-vacuum autoclaves and one vacuum autoclave. RESULTS: The study demonstrated different efficiencies among the small non-vacuum autoclaves, the best showing close to a 6 log reduction of the test organisms inside the turbine chamber. When cleaning and lubrication of the high-speed dental turbine was carried out before autoclaving, this level of reduction was observed for all the examined non-vacuum autoclaves. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that cleaning before sterilization is essential for safe use of high-speed dental turbines and that small non-vacuum autoclaves should be carefully evaluated before being used for the reprocessing of hollow instruments such as high-speed turbines.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if five types of turbine handpieces could withstand autoclaving in dental practice. METHOD: Five makes of handpieces were used sequentially by four NHS dental practices in the UK. The practitioners oiled and autoclaved the handpieces after every patient use according to the manufacturer's instructions. The number of times the turbine was used and for what procedure was noted. The turbine use was discontinued when the practitioner perceived a significant fall in handpiece performance and the output speed measured. RESULTS: Only one handpiece withstood one year of use in practice with a 1.8% drop in output speed. The other four handpieces had drops in output speeds of 23.5-63.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey confirm that some handpieces do not withstand autoclaving. It is also suggested that the tests used in this investigation represent a good assessment of whether a handpiece can withstand autoclaving. It would be useful if data comparable to that described in this paper were available for all handpieces.