Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2002 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 2

Determination of the effectiveness of hand disinfectants

El yıkama maddelerinin etkinliklerinin belirlenmesi

Pages
115–120
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At result, it is clear that dentist and their assistants have to preference the one of the highly effectual hand disinfectants and have to wash their hands with these materials systematically.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Because of infectious disease are arising at recent time it is obligatory that dentist and their assistants must take great attention to carried out their works in aseptic conditions so as not to cause cross-infection.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore it is very important to prevent contamination being with the dentist's and their assistant's hands.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At result, it is clear that dentist and their assistants have to preference the one of the highly effectual hand disinfectants and have to wash their hands with these materials systematically.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Because of infectious disease are arising at recent time it is obligatory that dentist and their assistants must take great attention to carried out their works in aseptic conditions so as not to cause cross-infection. Therefore it is very important to prevent contamination being with the dentist's and their assistant's hands. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the various hand washing materials and disinfectants. In this study, seven various hand washing materials and disinfectants are used. Tests are carried out with Serratia marcescens bacteria producing red pigment. First, gloved hands were immersed to Bacto Nutrient Agar. Having done this, gloved hands were washed with study materials in formal manner and residual bacteria counts were determined in cleanse solutions. Tests were repeated three times for each materials. Statistical analysis were obtained by using Duncan test. According to effectiveness materials were stated as follow rank: decosept > stocosept > isosol > virkon > sterisol > activex > pürel > tap water > Nutrient Broth. At result, it is clear that dentist and their assistants have to preference the one of the highly effectual hand disinfectants and have to wash their hands with these materials systematically.

Özet

Günümüzde bulaşıcı enfeksiyöz hastalıklar artmıştır. Diş hekimi ve yardımcı personeli çapraz enfeksiyonu önlemek için asepsi ve dezenfeksiyon işlemlerine gerekli özeni göstermek zorundadır. Bu durumda diş hekimi ve yardımcılarının elleri yoluyla olan bulaşmanın önlenmesi önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, çeşitli el yıkama maddelerinin temizleme etkinliklerinin belirlenmesidir. Çalışmada yedi değişik el yıkama maddesi kullanıldı. Denemeler için kırmızı pigment üreten Serratia marcescens bakterisi kullanıldı. Söz konusu bakteri ile hazırlanan sıvı besiyerine batırılan eldivenli eller çalışma maddeleri ile yıkandı. Yıkama solüsyonunda kalan bakteri sayısı belirlendi. Her madde 3 kez denenerek elde edilen sayım sonuçları istatistiksel olarak Duncan testi yardımıyla değerlendirildi. Çalışmada kullanılan materyalleri etkinlik derecelerine göre decosept > stocosept > isosol > virkon > sterisol > activex > pürel > çeşme suyu > Nutrient Broth şeklinde sıralanabileceği ortaya çıktı. Sonuç olarak diş hekimi ve yardımcıları etkinliği yüksek olan el dezenfektanlarından birisini tercih ederek düzenli bir şekilde ellerini yıkamalıdırlar.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKÜN, L. Ş., KAYA, D. A., ATEŞ, M. (2022). Determination of the effectiveness of hand disinfectants. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 2, 115–120. https://ajindex.com/articles/442307

References (17)

  1. Assocation report of ADA Council on scientific affairs and ADA council on dental practice. Infection control recommendations for the dental office and dental laboratory. JADA 1996; 127:672-9
  2. Gross A, Cutright DE, D'Alessandro SM. Effect ofsurgical scrub on microbial population under the fingernails Am J Surg 1979; 138: 46 -7
  3. Mohnan J. Dental infection control at the year 2000. JADA 1999;130: 1291-8
  4. Çintan S, Demirel K. Muayenehane pratiğinde infeksiyon kontrolü. Dişhekimliğinde Klinik Dergisi: 1997; 13: 77-81
  5. Gross A, Selting WJ, Cutright DE, Bhaskar SN. Evaluation of two antiseptic agents in surgical preparation of hands by a new method. Am J Surg 1973; 126: 49-52 6. Field EA, Jedynakiewicz NM, King CM. A practical gloving and handwashing regimen for dental practice. Br Dent J; 1992; 8: 111-3
  6. Durmuş S. Bazı antiseptiklerin ellerdeki kalıcı bakteri florası üzerine olan aktivitelerinin araştırılması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Bornova, İzmir, 1991;46-9
  7. Gobetti JP, Cerminaro M, Shipman C. Hand asepsis: the efficacy of different soaps in the removal of bacteria from sterile, gloved hands. JADA 1986; 113:291-2
  8. Douglas CWI, Millward TA. The use of various handwashing agents to decontaminate gloved hands. Br Dent J; 1989; 22: 62-5
  9. Handwashing Liaison Group. Hand washing. (Letters)BMJ 1999; 318: 686
  10. Baumann MA, Rath B, Fischer JH, Iffland R. The permeability of dental procedure and exam- ination gloves by an alcohol based disinfectant. Dental materials 2000; 16: 139-44
  11. Guide to blood borne viruses and the control of cross-infection in dentistry. London: British Dental Association, Press Incl987;137-141
  12. Sterilization Monitoring Service,Indiana University School of Dentistry.the case for gloves.Dent Asepsis Rev,1983;4:14-17
  13. Durmaz R, Durmaz B, Öztürk N, Gökoğlu M. Bazı antiseptiklerin antimikrobik aktivitelerinin araştırılması. Türk Mikrobiyol. Cem. Derg. 1989; 19:206-10
  14. Bilgehan H. Temel mikrobiyoloji ve bağışıklık bilimi. Bornova-İZMİR: Barış yayınları, 1987:86-91
  15. Ayliffe GA, Babb JR, Davies JG, Lilly HA. Hand disinfection: a comparison of various agents in laboratory and ward studies. J Hosp Infect 1988; 11:226-43
  16. Joress SM. A study of disinfection of the skin: a comparison of povidon-iodine with other agents used for surgical scrubs. Ann Surg 1962: 155: 296 -8
  17. Crowder VH Jr, Welsh JS, Bornside GH, Cohn I Jr. Bacteriologic comparison of hexa- chlorophene and polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine sur