Comparison of handpiece asepsis among Ohio dentists: 1991 & 1992.

Focus on Ohio dentistry Pub Date : 1993-09-01
D Deskins-Knebel, S Rosen
{"title":"Comparison of handpiece asepsis among Ohio dentists: 1991 & 1992.","authors":"D Deskins-Knebel,&nbsp;S Rosen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1991, we found that 23 percent of Ohio dentists sterilized handpieces between patients and 67 percent flushed handpieces between patients. In this study, we chose to investigate the changes in handpiece asepsis within Ohio dental offices for the twelve-month period ending August, 1992. Sixty-two percent of the 730 offices polled responded to the questionnaire. Offices reporting sterilization of handpieces between patients in 1992 is 80 percent compared to 23 percent in 1991. Sixty-nine percent of offices in the 1992 survey reported that they have changed infection control protocol to include heat sterilization of handpieces between patients while 24 percent report disinfection between patients. Back order of equipment, inadequate number of handpieces and fear of damage is cited by the offices using disinfection as the reasons for not sterilizing handpieces. Flushing handpieces between patients is reported by 83 percent of the offices. Previously, only 67 percent flushed between patients. Anti-retraction valves are present in 69 percent of the water lines. Breakdown of handpieces attributed to sterilization was reported by 45 percent of the offices. Two-hundred and three offices (45 percent) report questions from patients regarding office infection control policies. Infection control awareness of the general population and implementation of these procedures by dental professionals is increasing in Ohio.</p>","PeriodicalId":77849,"journal":{"name":"Focus on Ohio dentistry","volume":"67 2","pages":"8-9, 12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Focus on Ohio dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1991, we found that 23 percent of Ohio dentists sterilized handpieces between patients and 67 percent flushed handpieces between patients. In this study, we chose to investigate the changes in handpiece asepsis within Ohio dental offices for the twelve-month period ending August, 1992. Sixty-two percent of the 730 offices polled responded to the questionnaire. Offices reporting sterilization of handpieces between patients in 1992 is 80 percent compared to 23 percent in 1991. Sixty-nine percent of offices in the 1992 survey reported that they have changed infection control protocol to include heat sterilization of handpieces between patients while 24 percent report disinfection between patients. Back order of equipment, inadequate number of handpieces and fear of damage is cited by the offices using disinfection as the reasons for not sterilizing handpieces. Flushing handpieces between patients is reported by 83 percent of the offices. Previously, only 67 percent flushed between patients. Anti-retraction valves are present in 69 percent of the water lines. Breakdown of handpieces attributed to sterilization was reported by 45 percent of the offices. Two-hundred and three offices (45 percent) report questions from patients regarding office infection control policies. Infection control awareness of the general population and implementation of these procedures by dental professionals is increasing in Ohio.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1991年和1992年俄亥俄州牙科医生手机无菌比较。
1991年,我们发现23%的俄亥俄州牙医对病人之间的手机进行消毒,67%的牙医对病人之间的手机进行冲洗。在这项研究中,我们选择调查截至1992年8月的12个月期间俄亥俄州牙科诊所中手机无菌的变化。在接受调查的730家办公室中,有62%的办公室回应了调查问卷。1992年有80%的诊所报告病人之间的手机消毒,而1991年只有23%。在1992年的调查中,69%的诊所报告说他们已经改变了感染控制方案,包括对病人之间的手机进行热消毒,而24%的诊所报告说病人之间进行了消毒。使用消毒设备的办公室不对手机进行消毒的理由是设备未交付、手机数量不足和担心损坏。据报道,83%的诊所在病人之间冲洗手机。在此之前,只有67%的患者会脸红。在69%的输水管道上安装了防回缩阀。45%的办公室报告说,由于消毒导致手机损坏。203个办公室(45%)报告了患者关于办公室感染控制政策的问题。在俄亥俄州,普通人群的感染控制意识和牙科专业人员对这些程序的实施正在增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Poverty, health insurance, and use of health services. Dentally induced bacteremia and infection of total joint replacement arthroplasty. Comparison of handpiece asepsis among Ohio dentists: 1991 & 1992. An analysis of dental hygienist remuneration. Part III. From the results of the Ohio Dentist and Dental Hygiene Surveys. Treatment of an unusual case of external resorption and a six-year follow-up of that treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1