The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Antimicrobial Activity between Chemical Disinfectants on Contaminated Orthodontic Pliers

Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto, Marcos André dos Santos da Silva, Milton Carlos Kuga, Matheus Coelho Bandeca, Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino, Maria Reggiani Azevedo Carvalho, Carla Adriana Rodrigues de Sousa Brito, Viriato Campelo, Rudys Rodolfo De Jesus Tavarez

Citation Information : Tonetto MR, da Silva MA, Kuga MC, Bandeca MC, Pinzan-Vercelino CR, Carvalho MR, de Sousa Brito CA, Campelo V, Tavarez RR. Comparison of Antimicrobial Activity between Chemical Disinfectants on Contaminated Orthodontic Pliers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (8):619-623.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1731

Published Online: 01-08-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To compare the antimicrobial activity of the chemical substances—70% isopropyl alcohol, 2% glutaraldehyde (GTA) and 0.25% peracetic acid (PAA) in disinfecting orthodontic pliers contaminated in vitro with Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans.

Materials and methods

Distal end cutter pliers were divided into five groups: group 1 (negative control—sterilized pliers), group 2 (positive control—sterilized plier, subsequently contaminated), group 3 (disinfected with 70% isopropyl alcohol, friction method), group 4 (disinfected with 2% GTA, immersion method for 30 minutes), group 5 (disinfected with 0.25% peracetic acid (PAA), immersion method for 10 minutes). After the pliers were treated with one disinfectant and submitted to microbiological evaluation (by counting colony forming units), they were submitted to the same cleansing, sterilizing and contaminating processes, and were used in the following groups (crossover and washout study). The two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, followed by the Tukey test, was used to compare the groups.

Results

The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the three tested disinfectants.

Conclusion

Although there were no statistically significant differences between the disinfectants, the chemical agents 2% glutaraldehyde and 0.25% PAA were effective in inhibiting the growth of the three microorganisms tested; however, 70% isopropyl alcohol was unable to completely eliminate S. aureus.

Clinical significance

The chemical substances 2% glutaraldehyde and 0.25% PAA completely eliminated the microorganisms tested.

How to cite this article

Carvalho MRA, dos Santos da Silva MA, de Sousa Brito CAR, Campelo V, Kuga MC, Tonetto MR, De Jesus Tavarez RR, Bandéca MC, Pinzan-Vercelino CRM. Comparison of Antimicrobial Activity between Chemical Disinfectants on Contaminated Orthodontic Pliers. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(8):619-623.


PDF Share
  1. Infection control. Dent Clin North Am 2003;47(4):697-708.
  2. Effective disinfection of orthodontic pliers. J Orofac Orthop 2006;67(5):316-336.
  3. Infection control in the orthodontic office in Canadá. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(3):275-281.
  4. Compliance with infection control procedures among California orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102(1):68-75.
  5. Effect of steam versus dry-heat sterilization on the wear of orthodontic ligature-cutting pliers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121(5):467-471.
  6. A betweenpatient disinfection method control water line contamination and biofilm inside dental units. J Hosp Infect 2004;56(4):297-304.
  7. Comparison of the disinfectant efficacy of Perafase and 2% glutaraldehyde in in vitro tests. J Hosp Infect 2003;53(2):124-128.
  8. Inactivation of influenza A virus H1N1 by disinfection process. Am J Infect Control 2010;38(5):354-360.
  9. Antimicrobial efficacy of chemical disinfectants on contaminated full metal crowns. Braz Dent J 2010;21(3):241-246.
  10. Disinfection of wastewater with peracetic acid: a review. Environ Int 2004;30(1):47-55.
  11. Evaluation of the effectiveness of peracetic acid in the sterilization of dental equipament. Indian J Med Microbiol 2008;26(2):117-122.
  12. In vivo and in vitro evaluation of the efficacy of a peracetic acid-based disinfectant for decontamination of acrylic resins. Braz Dent J 2006;17(2):117-121.
  13. Effect of peracetic acid and aldehyde disinfectants on biofilm. J Hosp Infect 2004;58(2):151-154.
  14. The influence of temperature on the decomposition kinetics of peracetic acid in solutions. Braz J Chem Eng 2001;18(2):217-220.
  15. Comparative biomechanical and microstructural analysis of native versus peracetic acid-ethanol treated cancellous bone graft. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:784702.
  16. In vitro antifungal evaluation of seven different disinfectants on acrylic resins. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:519098.
  17. Susceptibility of Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus mutans biofilms to photodynamic inactivation: an in vitro study. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26(3):341-348.
  18. Comparison of the mycobactericidal activity of 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde and ‘Nucidex’(0,35% acid peracetic). J Hosp Infect 1995;30(3):237-240.
  19. Formation of biofilm by Staphylococcus aureus on stainless steel and glass surfaces and its resistance to some selected chemical sanitizers. Braz J Microbiol 2007;38(3):538-543.
  20. Evaluation of effectiveness of chemical disinfectants in reducing bacterial growth on orthodontic instruments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1039-1043.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.