摘要
目的研究0.2%过氧化氢纳米银离子消毒剂(hydrogen peroxide nano silver ion,HPNS)和10~20 mg/L微酸性电解水(slightly acidic electrolytic water,SAEW)对口腔综合治疗台水路(dental unit waterlines,DUWLs)的消毒效果,探讨适宜的消毒方法。方法将24台DUWLs随机分为HPNS组和SAEW组,隔日过夜消毒。分别检测第1~3次消毒后首次诊疗前(0 h)、诊疗活动后9.5 h、24 h、33.5 h漱口水、三用枪、高速涡轮手机的水样菌落数。结果两组DUWLs消毒后首次诊疗前相同取样部位菌落数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),水样合格率均为100.00%(36/36)。HPNS组、SAEW组DUWLs诊疗后相同取样部位菌落数、合格率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),漱口水水样合格率均为100.00%(108/108);三用枪水样合格率分别为99.07%(107/108)、98.15%(106/108);高速涡轮手机水样合格率为92.59%(100/108)、96.30%(104/108)。消毒后首次诊疗前、诊疗后,HPNS组或SAEW组DUWLs同一取样部位菌落数差异有统计学意义(HPNS组分别为:I-J_(AA')=-24.102,P_(AA')<0.01;I-J_(BB')=-39.731,P_(BB')<0.01;I-J_(CC')=-64.620,P_(CC')<0.01。SAEW组分别为:I-J_(aa')=-27.083,P_(aa')<0.01;I-J_(bb')=-36.370,P_(bb')<0.01;I-Jcc′=-52.157,Pcc′<0.01);但合格率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。第1~3次消毒中,HPNS组或SAEW组DUWLs在诊疗活动后33.5 h时检出菌落数呈减少趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。第2~3次消毒中,两组DUWLs诊疗活动后33.5 h时水样合格率均为97.22%(35/36),其余时间点水样合格率均为100.00%(36/36)。结论HPNS或SAEW隔日过夜消毒DUWLs均可取得理想效果。
Objective To compare the efficacy of two disinfectants used for dental unit waterlines(DUWLs)disinfection.Methods 0.2%hydrogen peroxide nano silver ion(HPNS)and 10-20 mg/L slightly acidic electrolytic water(SAEW)disinfectants were used in the study.24 DUWLs were randomly divided into two groups and were treated with either HPNS(HPNS group)or SAEW(SAEW group)overnight and every other day for 3 times.Bacterial colonies were counted from 3 sample types of mouthwashes,triple syringes water sample and high-speed turbine handpieces water sample collected pre-use(0 h)and 9.5 h,24 h and 33.5 h post-use of DUWLs.Results There was no statistically significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies of the same sample type between the two groups(P>0.05),and the passing rate of water samples was 100.00%(36/36).The differences in the number of bacterial colonies and passing rate of the same sample type at each time-point of post-use between the two groups were not significant(P>0.05),with the passing rates of 100.00%(108/108).The passing rates of water samples from the triple syringes were 99.07%(107/108)in HPNS group and 98.15%(106/108)in SAEW group,while the passing rates of water samples from high-speed turbine handpieces were 92.59%(100/108)and 96.30%(104/108),respectively.At 9.5h,24hand 33.5hpost-use of DUWLs,the numbers of bacterial colonies varied significantly between the two groups(I-J_(AA')=-24.102,P_(AA')<0.01,I-J_(BB')=-39.731,P_(BB')<0.01,I-J_(CC')=-64.620,P_(CC')<0.01in HPNS group;I-J_(aa')=-27.083,P_(aa')<0.01,I-J_(bb')=-36.370,P_(bb')<0.01,I-J_(cc')=-52.157,P_(cc')<0.01in SAEW group),however the differences in the passing rates were not significant(P>0.05).The number of colonies showed a reducing trend at 33.5hpost-usage after each distinction in both groups with no statistical difference(P>0.05).After the 2nd and 3rd disinfection,the passing rates of water samples at each timepoint were 100.00% in both groups,except a 97.22%(35/36)passing rate at 33.5hpost-use.Conclusions The two disinfectants HPNS and
作者
陈叶俊
叶冬青
钱毅
余瑞
耿思雅
石小招
刘勇
CHEN Ye-jun;YE Dong-qing;Qian Yi;YU Rui;GENG Si-ya;SHI Xiao-zhao;LIU Yong(Stomatologic Hospital,Anhui Medical University,Key Lab.of Oral Diseases Research of Anhui Province,Hefei j Anhui 230032,China;不详)
出处
《中国预防医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2022年第2期109-114,共6页
Chinese Preventive Medicine
基金
安徽省重点开发与研究计划项目(201904a07020062)
安徽医科大学校科研基金(2020xkj149)。
