Abstract:Objective:Pathogenic microbes may be transmitted directly from the orthodontist to the patient or from the patient to the doctor, and indirectly from patient to patient. The latter may occur via contaminated instruments or surfaces, and is referred to as cross-contamination. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of bacterial contamination of orthodontic pliers and the efficacy of the disinfection techniques applied after clinical use. We also sought to examine under standardized conditions the virucidal, bactericidal and fungicidal effects of disinfection techniques used in practice.Materials and Methods:The efficacy of various disinfection methods was determined after clinical use in-vivo on 10 test subjects and in-vitro with deliberate contamination. The following disinfection methods were tested:1. Iso-Septol spray2. Incidur® spray3. Trough disinfection in combination with 5% Sekusept® Plus solution4. Ultrasound bath in combination with 5% Sekusept® Plus solution5. Thermal disinfectionFor in-vitro contamination we used the test organisms Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Candida albicans, Coxsackie virus B4, HSV 1, and Adenovirus type 5. The tests were carried out six to eight times for each organism. The Weingart pliers and distalend cutters were tested. The criteria for effective disinfection were a reduction in infectiosity of five log steps (for bacteria and fungi) or four log steps (viruses). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Wilcoxon and Whitney U-test.Results:The presence of contamination following clinical use was not adequately eliminated with all disinfection methods. The spray methods exhibited shortcomings in disinfection. For the type of contamination defined, trough disinfection with 5% Sekusept® Plus and the Incidur® and Iso-Septol spray disinfection methods provided insufficient disinfection. Conversely, the ultrasound bath with 5% Sekusept® Plus solution and steam disinfection met the criteria for effective disinfection for all microbes. No statistically significant difference was found between the oiled and unoiled states. In some cases, there were slightly higher rates of contamination with the Weingart pliers as with the distalend cutters. However, these were not statistically significant.Conclusions:It should be possible to disinfect lipophilic viruses and the usual bacterial infections adequately with all methods, provided that the use of sprays and trough disinfection is preceded by cleaning with brush and water, followed by drying. With hydrophilic viruses, however, the spray and trough disinfection methods are limited in their efficacy and cannot be considered adequate. Exclusively chemical methods are therefore less effective than thermal or physical-chemical methods.Thermal disinfection and the ultrasound bath in combination with 5% Sekusept® Plus are clearly superior to spray disinfection and trough disinfection alone. The ultrasound bath and thermal disinfection can therefore be recommended for the disinfection of orthodontic pliers. We recommend that the pliers be cleaned beforehand due to their uneven surfaces.

1414. Residual Surface Disinfectant Reduces Finger Transfer of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria and Viruses from Surfaces for 24 hours after Treatment

The antibacterial performance of a residual disinfectant against Staphylococcus aureus on environmental surfaces

Persistent silver disinfectant for the environmental control of pathogenic bacteria

Is a reduction in viability enough to determine biofilm susceptibility to a biocide?

1219. Disinfection of Surfaces Contaminated with Carbapenemase Producing Acinetobacter baumannii Using Ozone Under Complex Room Conditions

Surface Cleaning with a Microfiber Cloth and Water followed by Ultraviolet-C Light Exposure Achieves Non-Inferior Disinfection of a Pathogenic Staphylococcus aureus Strain versus Use of Germicidal Wipes

High touch surface bioburden associated with the use of disinfectants with and without continuously active disinfection in ambulatory care settings

Continuous surface and air decontamination technologies: Current concepts and controversies

820. Impact of pulsed xenon ultraviolet (PX-UV) light disinfection for reduction of pathogens on high touch surfaces following hospitalization

Efficacy of Three Commercial Disinfectants in Reducing Microbial Surfaces’ Contaminations of Pharmaceuticals Hospital Facilities

Effective Disinfection of Orthodontic Pliers

Far-UV-C irradiation promotes synergistic bactericidal action against adhered cells of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus epidermidis

Measuring the impact of an enhanced strategy for daily disinfection in acute-care hospital rooms

Evaluation of surface disinfection methods to inactivate the beta coronavirus Murine Hepatitis Virus

The efficacy of commercial decontamination agents differs between standardised test settings and research laboratory usage for a variety of bacterial species

Far-UVC light (222 nm) efficiently inactivates clinically significant antibiotic-resistant bacteria on diverse material surfaces

A Metatranscriptomics Survey of Microbial Diversity on Surfaces Post-Intervention of cleanSURFACES® Technology in an Intensive Care Unit

Efficiency of coronavirus inactivation on environmental surfaces: A comparison study of two available disinfectants

[Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of products used for disinfection of work surfaces in the food industry]

Modern technologies for improving cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces in hospitals

How long do bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses retain their replication capacity on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review examining environmental resilience versus healthcare-associated infection risk by "fomite-borne risk assessment"