 |
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2025, vol. 31, issue4
Subject Area: Medicine
-
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2025314.6505
Published online: 03 October 2025
Original article
J of IMAB. 2025 Oct-Dec;31(4):6505-6509
STUDY ON DECONTAMINATION LEVELS IN DENTAL IMPRESSIONS AND CONSTRUCTIONS
Velina Stoeva1
, Yordan Kalchev2, 3, 4
, Veselina Kondeva5, Mariyana Murdjeva2, 4,
1) Department of Epidemiology and Disaster Medicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
2) Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology "Prof. Dr. Elissay Yanev", Faculty of Medicine, Medical University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
3) Laboratory of Microbiology, University Hospital St. George, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
4) Research division of Innovative Diagnostic Methods, Research Institute, Medical University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
5) Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University - Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Purpose: Infection control within dental offices is essential for preventing pathogen transmission among patients, staff, and between clinical and laboratory settings. Despite established guidelines, adherence to protocols remains inconsistent, posing a risk of cross-infections. This study focuses on the decontamination rates of dental impressions used in removable and non-removable prosthetics in Bulgaria, aiming to highlight current decontamination practices and their efficacy.
Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective microbiological and epidemiological study involving 50 dental impressions and 8 finished constructions from individual and group dental practices, as well as samples taken by dental students. The microbiological examination included screening for facultative anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms, serving as an indicator for conducted decontamination practices. Specimens were obtained from adults by using dry sterile cotton swabs in a transport medium, subsequently inoculated on blood agar, eosin-methylene blue agar, and chromogenic medium for Candida spp.
Results: Our results showed that 18 (47.4%) of impressions for non-removable and 4 (33.3%) impressions for removable dental prosthetics tested positive for facultative anaerobic and aerobic bacteria as well as fungi. Predominant bacteria included viridans streptococci and resident Neisseria spp. Additionally, Gram-negative enteric bacteria were also found predominantly in non-removable impressions – 4 (14.8%). A single Candida albicans isolate was cultured in both non-removable and removable impressions. Among finished constructions, one sample tested positive for Escherichia coli.
Conclusion: These findings indicate significant gaps in decontamination practices, particularly with non-removable dental impressions, highlighting the necessity for improved training and adherence to infection control protocols.
Keywords: dental impressions, dental practice, removable and non-removable prosthetics, microbial contamination, decontamination, disinfection,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 547 KB/
Please cite this article as: Stoeva V, Kalchev Y, Kondeva V, Murdjeva M. Study on decontamination levels in dental impressions and constructions. J of IMAB. 2025 Oct-Dec;31(4):6505-6509. [Crossref - 10.5272/jimab.2025314.6505]
Correspondence to: Yordan Kalchev, MD, PhD, MPH, MHCM, Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Medical University – Plovdiv; 15A Vasil Aprilov Blvd., 4002, Plovdiv, Bulgaria; E-mail: yordan.kalchev@mu-plovdiv.bg
REFERENCES:
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for Infection Control in Dental Health-Care Settings — 2003. MMWR. 2003 Dec 19;52: RR-17 [Internet]
2. Molinari J. Infection control Its evolution to the current standard precautions. JADA. 2003 May;134(5):569-74. [PubMed]
3. Guidelines for infection control in the dental office and the commercial dental laboratory. Council on Dental Therapeutics. Council on Prosthetic Services and Dental Laboratory Relations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985 Jun;110(6):969-72. [PubMed ]
4. Bromberg N, Brizuela M. Preventing Cross Infection in the Dental Office. 2023 Mar 19. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–. [PubMed]
5. Sonkesriya S, Gaur G, Maheshwari A, Kumar Ashahiya A, Kaur Aulakh S, Kumar A, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection Protocols for Dental Impressions in Prosthodontics. Cureus. 2024 Jul 27;16(7):e65535. [PubMed]
6. Gupta S, Rani S, Garg S. Infection control knowledge and practice: A cross-sectional survey on dental laboratories in dental institutes of North India. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017; 17(4): 348-354
7. [ORDER No. 3 of 8.05.2013 on the approval of the medical standard for the prevention and control of nosocomial infections.] [in Bulgarian] Ministry of Health. [Internet]
8. Al Shikh A, Milosevic A. Effectiveness of Alcohol and Aldehyde Spray Disinfectants on Dental Impressions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020 Feb 13;12:25-30. [PubMed]
9. Powell GL, Runnells RD, Saxon BA, Whisenant BK. The presence and identification of organisms transmitted to dental laboratories. J Prosthet Dent. 1990 Aug;64(2):235-7. [PubMed]
10. Sofou A, Larsen T, Fiehn NE, Owall B. Contamination level of alginate impressions arriving at a dental laboratory. Clin Oral Investig. 2002 Sep;6(3):161-5. [PubMed]
11. Egusa H, Watamoto T, Abe K, Kobayashi M, Kaneda Y, Ashida S, Matsumoto T, Yatani H. An analysis of the persistent presence of opportunistic pathogens on patient-derived dental impressions and gypsum casts. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(1):62-8.
12. Thomas MV, Jarboe G, Frazer RQ. Infection control in the dental office. Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Jul;52(3):609-28, x. [PubMed]
13. FDI. Guidelines for infection control in the dental office and the commercial laboratory. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1985; 110:969-972.
14. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs and ADA Council on Dental Practice: Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 1996; 127:672-680.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Recommended infection-control practices for dentistry. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rpt 1993; 42(RR8):1-12.
16. Stoeva V, Hristamyan M, Atanasovski A. Study of the level of knowledge about hand disinfection and the application of routine disinfection measures among dental technicians. J of IMAB. 2024 Jan-Mar;30(1):5414-5418. [Crossref]
17. Rangelova V, Alexandrova M, Kevorkyan A. [The need for disinfection in the dental laboratory.] [in Bulgarian] Scientific works of the Union of Scientists in Bulgaria - Plovdiv, series G. Medicine, Pharmacy and Dental medicine. 2019; 22:270-273. [Internet]
18. Salvia AC, Matilde Fdos S, Rosa FC, Kimpara ET, Jorge AO, Balducci I, et al. Disinfection protocols to prevent cross-contamination between dental offices and prosthetic laboratories. J Infect Public Health. 2013 Oct;6(5):377-82. [PubMed]
19. Hardan L, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Lukomska-Szymanska M, Cornejo-Ríos E, Tosco V, et al. Disinfection Procedures and Their Effect on the Microorganism Colonization of Dental Impression Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies. Bioengineering (Basel). 2022 Mar 16;9(3):123. [PubMed]
Received: 18 February 2025
Published online: 03 October 2025