Disinfection Procedures and Their Effect on the Microorganism Colonization of Dental Impression Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.
antibacterial effect
dental impressions
disinfectant agents
disinfection
oral bacteria
Journal
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2306-5354
Titre abrégé: Bioengineering (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101676056
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Mar 2022
16 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
15
02
2022
revised:
10
03
2022
accepted:
11
03
2022
entrez:
24
3
2022
pubmed:
25
3
2022
medline:
25
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dental impressions are contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms when they come into contact with patient blood, saliva, and plaque. Numerous disinfectants are used; however, no sole disinfectant can be designated as universal for all the impression materials. Thus, the aim of this study is to systemically review the literature to evaluate the effect of the existing disinfection procedures on the bacterial colonization of dental impression materials. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and SciELO databases were screened up to April 2021. Eligibility criteria included in vitro studies reporting the antibacterial activity of disinfectant solutions in dental impression materials. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3.5). A global comparison was performed with the standardized mean difference based on random-effect models at a significance level of α = 0.05. A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies described the effect of disinfection processes with chlorhexidine gluconate, alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, glutaraldehyde, and hydrogen peroxide in alginate, polyvinyl siloxane, and polyether impression materials. The meta-analyses showed that the use of chlorhexidine, alcohol, glutaraldehyde, and sodium hypochlorite reduced the colony-forming units by a milliliter (CFU/mL) in alginate (p < 0.001). On the other hand, glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite, and alcohol reduced the CFU/mL in polyvinyl siloxane (p < 0.001). Finally, alcohol and glutaraldehyde reduced the CFU/mL in polyether material (p < 0.001). High heterogenicity was observed for the alginate and polyvinyl siloxane materials (I2 = 74%; I2 = 90%). Based on these in vitro studies, the disinfection of impression materials with several disinfection agents reduces the CFU/mL count.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35324812
pii: bioengineering9030123
doi: 10.3390/bioengineering9030123
pmc: PMC8945053
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012 Jul 01;13(4):431-5
pubmed: 23151687
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89
pubmed: 33781348
Dent Mater. 2002 Mar;18(2):103-10
pubmed: 11755588
Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Nov-Dec;22(6):764-9
pubmed: 22484867
J Med Life. 2019 Oct-Dec;12(4):395-402
pubmed: 32025258
J Prosthodont. 2019 Feb;28(2):e849-e856
pubmed: 28422353
Dent Mater. 1995 Jan;11(1):19-23
pubmed: 7498603
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Mar 1;19(3):296-300
pubmed: 29603702
Dermatology. 2006;212 Suppl 1:109-11
pubmed: 16490986
J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Nov;68(5):728-32
pubmed: 1432791
Braz Dent J. 2002;13(2):113-7
pubmed: 12238801
SADJ. 2009 Jun;64(5):208, 210-2
pubmed: 19725332
J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun;115(6):722-8
pubmed: 26794692
J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Jun;11(3):155-161
pubmed: 31297174
Cas Lek Cesk. 2009;148(6):269-70, 272
pubmed: 19642309
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):613-7
pubmed: 24819530
Int J Prosthodont. 2007 May-Jun;20(3):299-307
pubmed: 17580464
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2007 Dec;15(4):177-82
pubmed: 18236929
J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Jul;64(1):25-31
pubmed: 2117069
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Feb;65(2):244-9
pubmed: 2051359
Quintessence Int. 1991 Jul;22(7):587-91
pubmed: 1882053
J Basic Clin Pharm. 2014 Sep;5(4):98-104
pubmed: 25316989
Aust Dent J. 1998 Dec;43(6):428-34
pubmed: 9973714
Int J Prosthodont. 1990 Jul-Aug;3(4):379-83
pubmed: 2088375
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Jan 1;19(1):113-116
pubmed: 29358546
Int J Prev Med. 2018 Apr 11;9:37
pubmed: 29770172
J Prosthet Dent. 1999 May;81(5):621-4
pubmed: 10220669
Int J Prosthodont. 2014 Jul-Aug;27(4):363-5
pubmed: 25010881
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Oct 1;18(10):887-892
pubmed: 28989125
J Prosthodont. 2012 Jan;21(1):16-21
pubmed: 22040354
Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Jan-Feb;29(1):63-7
pubmed: 26757331
J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Dec;60(6):725-8
pubmed: 3060605
Int J Prosthodont. 1992 Nov-Dec;5(6):563-7
pubmed: 1339136
Dent Mater. 1998 Nov;14(6):399-404
pubmed: 10483401
Int J Prosthodont. 1991 Jul-Aug;4(4):382-7
pubmed: 1811634
Br Dent J. 1996 May 25;180(10):369-75
pubmed: 8652299
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
Biocontrol Sci. 2021;26(1):17-25
pubmed: 33716245
Int J Prosthodont. 1994 May-Jun;7(3):234-8
pubmed: 7916888
Dent Mater. 1990 Jul;6(3):201-3
pubmed: 2086295
Dent Clin North Am. 2004 Apr;48(2):vi-vii, 445-70
pubmed: 15172610
J Nihon Univ Sch Dent. 1994 Jun;36(2):135-8
pubmed: 8083771
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Apr;65(4):532-5
pubmed: 2066892
J Prosthodont. 2018 Jun;27(5):469-475
pubmed: 27385390
J Prosthet Dent. 1992 May;67(5):628-31
pubmed: 1527745
Eur J Dent. 2016 Oct-Dec;10(4):507-511
pubmed: 28042266
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2019 May 07;11:103-108
pubmed: 31191035
Gels. 2022 Mar 11;8(3):
pubmed: 35323288
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2010 Sep;10(3):182-9
pubmed: 21886411
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Feb 1;18(2):131-136
pubmed: 28174366
Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Mar 18;22(6):
pubmed: 33803546
Int J Prosthodont. 1996 May-Jun;9(3):217-22
pubmed: 8957855
ISRN Dent. 2012;2012:695151
pubmed: 22900196
J Am Dent Assoc. 1996 May;127(5):672-80
pubmed: 8642147
J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Apr;71(4):387-9
pubmed: 8196004
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Apr;8(4):ZC42-6
pubmed: 24959515