Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8641531

Infection control.

C H Miller
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

From an infectious disease point of view, dentistry has never been safer than it is today for both patients and the dental team. This state of affairs has resulted from the establishment and practice of strict infection control in the office using the concept of universal precautions. Infection control consists of a series of procedures directed at reducing the number of microbes shared among people. An approach to the management of infection control involves identification of an office safety coordinator and total involvement of everyone in the office. The procedures of infection control can be grouped into six major areas. 1. Handwashing and gloving provides protection to both patients and the dental team. 2. Protection against aerosols and spatter involves the use of a preprocedure mouthrinse, HVE, rubber dam, saliva ejection, mask, protective eyewear, and protective clothing. 3. Instrument processing provides instruments that are safe for patient use. 4. Surface asepsis eliminates the involvement of environmental surfaces in the spread of disease agents. 5. Management of sharps and other regulated waste reduces the chances for sharps injuries and contact with potentially infectious material. 6. Aseptic techniques include aseptic retrieval of supplies, reducing contamination from dental unit water, aseptic radiographic procedures, proper use of disposables, and preventing contamination of the dental laboratory.

Explore related subjects

AsepsisDental InstrumentsDental OfficesDentistryEquipment ContaminationHumansInfection ControlLaboratories, DentalProtective ClothingUniversal PrecautionsJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C H Miller. 1996. Infection control.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8641531/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

OR barrier materials--necessity or extravagance?

The issue at hand, therefore, is not one of reusable versus disposable, but rather the cost-effectiveness and expense associated with use of barrier versus nonbarrier materials. As mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the need and function of the surgeons' gown barrier is a given. Initially the gown was used to protect the patient from members of the surgical team; its role now is to protect the surgical team members from the patient and the hazards associated with exposure to bloodborne pathogens. As for barrier drapes (i.e., patient, Mayo stand, back table covers), considering the influence of today's antibiotics and the advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques on the incidence of postoperative infection, just how necessary are they? Initially the use of barrier drapes was viewed as a reasonable practice. The problem, however, with any reasonable type of practice of this nature is identifying the kind and quality of supporting evidence and testing the practice itself. If there is no evidence for or against a practice; its advocates make up the process as they go along. In the case of barrier drapes, there were individuals who assumed that there were studies that conclusively demonstrated their need, even though they never sought confirmation to that effect. In the process, whether the drapes were cost-effective escaped criticism, and their use survived over the years because of the "that's the way we've always done it" syndrome. In a comprehensive examination of draping practices written 60 years ago, a physician discusses the myriad sources of contamination that could contribute to postoperative infection. He concluded that "to minimize the chances of contamination, all of these sources must be separately and individually studied." In terms of the influence of barrier surgical drapes, there remains a need for unbiased, statistically valid, conclusive research. Until such data become available, their use cannot be indisputably defended.

Asepsis↗