Do bib clips pose a cross-contamination risk at the dental clinic?

Although multiple-use dental napkin holders have a relatively low risk of transmitting infection, they do require disinfection between patients. This study sought to: 1) determine the presence of bacterial load on two types of clips of reusable bib chains after dental procedures at the Endodontics and Orthodontics clinics at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine; and 2) evaluate the effectiveness of disinfecting the clips. These specialty clinics represent a wide spectrum of patients, procedures, and appointment times. Bacterial load on the bib clips was determined immediately following dental treatments-both before and after their disinfection-during morning and afternoon sessions. The results revealed that, after treatments, there was a statistically significant difference when comparing the two clinics for bacterial burden on the clips. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference in bacterial load on the two types of clips. Disinfection of the bib clips was highly effective in both clinics. Clinically, the results suggest that due to the nature of the treatment, the demographic population, and the type of bib clips used, patients in different clinics may be exposed to varying bacterial concentrations on the bib clips, and thus to different possible cross-contamination risks. Future analyses will be performed to identify the bacterial species in samples from both pre- and post-disinfected clips, and to determine if they harbor disease-causing bacterial species that can pose a potential, yet undetermined risk for cross-contamination.

Rubber dam use during post placement influences the success of root canal-treated teeth.

INTRODUCTION: Salivary leakage after root canal therapy is of great concern and can lead to failure of the endodontic therapy. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of a rubber dam (RD) during post placement impacts the success of root canal-treated teeth. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews of 185 patients with an average recall of 2.7 years were assessed for the incidence of a new periapical lesion (periapical index score >2) after root canal therapy and post placement. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of an RD clamp in the verification radiograph during post placement. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (30 teeth) had a post placed with the use of an RD, and 159 patients (174 teeth) had a post placed without an RD. In the non-RD group, 128 (73.6%) teeth were considered successful at follow-up. In the RD group, 28 (93.3%) teeth were considered successful at follow-up. Based on the bivariate GEE model, the difference in success between these 2 groups was statistically significant (P = .035). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an RD during prefabricated post placement provides a significantly higher success rate of root canal-treated teeth. Using an RD is already considered a standard of care for nonsurgical root canal therapy; in addition, using an RD during restorative procedures that involve open teeth should also become a standard of care.