Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection Protocols for Dental Impressions in Prosthodontics
Subhash Sonkesriya,Ghanshyam Gaur,Akanksha Maheshwari,Arun Kumar Ashahiya,Simran Kaur Aulakh,Amit Kumar,Bhumika Kamal Badiyani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65535
2024-07-27
Cureus
Abstract:Background: In prosthodontics, dental impressions are essential for creating precise dental restorations. However, these impressions are susceptible to microbial contamination, which can pose a risk of infection to patients. Consequently, effective disinfection methods are crucial to prevent postoperative infections. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of various disinfection techniques for dental impressions used in prosthodontics. Materials and methods: A total of 148 poured dental impressions were randomized into three disinfection groups: immersed in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% glutaraldehyde, or 0.2% chlorhexidine solution. The bacterial contamination was evaluated by direct colony-forming unit (CFU) counting, while the dimensional accuracy and surface detail duplication of each resin sample were determined as physical properties. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Either analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the option for post-hoc or non-parametric tests was used to investigate and compare the efficacy of the better disinfection protocols where the p-value was considered significant if less than 0.05. Results: Glutaraldehyde showed the lowest mean CFU count (2.5 log10 CFUs), followed by sodium hypochlorite (3.2 log10 CFUs) and chlorhexidine (3.5 log10 CFUs). All disinfection protocols were able to significantly reduce microbial contamination when compared with the control group (p < 0.05). The results of the physical property assessment demonstrated acceptable dimensional accuracy in all tested protocols, with slight differences recorded between them regarding the reproduction of surface detail. More specifically, the mean dimensional deviation was in the range between 0.02 and 0.04 mm, while scores for surface detail reproduction ranged from 2 to 4. The ANOVA results revealed significant differences in microbial contamination levels (F(2, 145) = 5.72, p = 0.007) and dimensional accuracy (F(2, 145) = 3.45, p = 0.032) between the various disinfection protocols. Conclusion: This study enlightens the effective sterilization protocol to be adopted in prosthodontics for dental impressions. Glutaraldehyde was most effective in microbial reduction, while sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine were equally effective. Therefore, clinicians must be vigilant in assessing the type of microbial flora that can be encountered during prosthodontic procedures while choosing disinfection protocols for patient safety and quality of impressions.