Bioseguridad en el laboratorio dental / Biosafety in the dental laboratory

Una enfermedad infecciosa es aquella producida por un agente infeccioso (bacterias, hongos, virus, etc.) que ingresa y se desarrolla en el organismo de un hospedero. Posteriormente, puede trasmitirse de un individuo a otro directamente por contacto entre ambos, o bien, indirectamente, por medio de un vec-tor biológico (de naturaleza animal o vegetal), o de un fómite (objeto inanimado). Las vías por las que un agente infeccioso puede ingresar a un hospedero son: inhalación (respiración de aerosoles), ingestión (salpicaduras de gotas), penetración de mucosas (na-sal, ocular y bucal) o lesiones en la piel o mucosas. Las fuentes de infección pueden ser los pacientes, el personal del consultorio o laboratorio, las superficies e instrumental contaminados y las prótesis o com-ponentes de éstas. Para evitar la propagación de los agentes microbianos se debe interrumpir el proceso de transmisión de los mismos. Todo profesional debe fortalecer y readecuar normas y protocolos de biose-guridad en la tarea diaria, para minimizar el riesgo de transmisión directa y cruzada entre el profesional, su equipo auxiliar, el laboratorista y los pacientes (AU)

An infectious disease is one caused by an infectious agent (bacteria, fungi, virus, etc.) that enters and develops in a host. Then it can be transmitted from one individual to another directly by contact between the two or, indirectly through a biological vector (an animal or plant nature), or a fomite (an inanimate object). The routes by which an infectious agent can enter a host are: inhalation (breathing of aerosols), ingestion (splash of droplets), penetration of mucous membranes (nasal, ocular and oral) and skin or mucous lesions. Sources of infection can be patients, office or laboratory personnel, contaminated surfaces and instruments and the prosthesis or component thereof. To prevent the spread of microbial agents, the process of their transmission must be interrupted. Every professional must strengthen and readjust biosafety standards and protocols in daily work to minimize the risk of direct and cross-transmission between the professional, his auxiliary team, the laboratory technician and the patients (AU)

Laboratorio mecánico dental: norma técnica No. 24-2019 / Dental mechanical laboratory: technical standard No. 24-2019

Este documento tiene como objeto: "la regulación, autorización y control de los laboratorios mecánicos dentales, en concordancia con el Reglamento para la Regulación, Autorización, Acreditación y Control de Establecimientos de Atención para la Salud, Acuerdo Gubernativo 376-2007." Es de carácter obligatorio, por lo que se aplica tanto al sector público, privado, social o subsector de la seguridad social, en todo el territorio nacional. Contiene además, las definiciones de los conceptos relacionados al tema principal, además de la infraestructura que deberá tener cada clínica, incluidos el equipo y recurso humano y técnico.

Control de la infección cruzada en los laboratorios de prótesis dental de Galicia / Control of cross-contamination in dental prostheses laboratories in Galicia

Fundamento: El laboratorio dental es una fuente potencial de contaminación cruzada. Este trabajo busca evaluar su control en Galicia. Material y métodos: Entrevistas telefónicas aleatorias y voluntarias hasta completar 149 cuestionarios. Las variables se describen mediante porcentajes o medias y desviaciones típicas. Se realiza análisis bivariante empleando ji cuadrado. Resultados: Participaron mayoritariamente varones (68,5%), de mediana edad (media=45,7; DE=9,8) con 20,8 (DE=10,5) años de ejercicio en laboratorios urbanos medianos (58,4%), que cuentan mayoritariamente con protocolo escrito (57,7%) y que identifican mayor riesgo al recibir trabajos (80,6%). El 55,0% (significativamente hombres de mayor edad) no asegura la desinfección de los trabajos. La mayoría usa guantes (62,4%), sobre todo jóvenes en laboratorios grandes. Un 55,7% está vacunado frente a hepatitis B. Una minoría (22,0%) ha recibido formación en control de contaminación cruzada. Conclusiones: Las prácticas de control de contaminación cruzada se encuentran por debajo de los estándares recomendados, con un importante déficit de formación y protocolos

Background: Dental laboratories are a potential source of cross-contamination. This study aims to assess its control in Galicia. Methods: Voluntary random telephone interviews resulted in 149 completed questionnaires. The variables are described by percentages or means and standar deviations. A bivariate analysis was undertaken using the Chi square test. Results: Participants were mostly middle-age (mean=45.7, SD=9.8) males (68.5%) with 20.8 (SD=10.5) years of professional experience in middle-size urban (58.4%) laboratories, who identified a higher risk when receiving items from the clinic (80.6%). Most technicians (57.7%) have a written protocol. Many (55.0%), significantly older males, do not check for item disinfection. Most technicians use gloves (62.4%) particularly younger staff at larger laboratories. Fifty-five point seven percent had been vaccinated against hepatitis B. Only 22.0% of technicians reported receiving training in cross-contamination control. Conclusions: Identified cross-infection control practices are below standards, and lack of training and protocols are a matter for concern

[Control of cross-contamination in dental prostheses laboratories in Galicia]. / Control de la infección cruzada en los laboratorios de prótesis dental de Galicia.

BACKGROUND: Dental laboratories are a potential source of cross-contamination. This study aims to assess its control in Galicia. METHODS: Voluntary random telephone interviews resulted in 149 completed questionnaires. The variables are described by percentages or means and standard deviations. A bivariate analysis was undertaken using the Chi square test. RESULTS: Participants were mostly middle-age (mean=45.7, SD=9.8) males (68.5%) with 20.8 (SD=10.5) years of professional experience in middle-size urban (58.4%) laboratories, who identified a higher risk when receiving items from the clinic (80.6%). Most technicians (57.7%) have a written protocol. Many (55.0%), significantly older males, do not check for item disinfection. Most technicians use gloves (62.4%) particularly younger staff at larger laboratories. Fifty-five point seven percent had been vaccinated against hepatitis B. Only 22.0% of technicians reported receiving training in cross-contamination control. CONCLUSIONS: Identified cross-infection control practices are below standards, and lack of training and protocols are a matter for concern.

Quality Evaluation of Zirconium Dioxide Frameworks Produced in Five Dental Laboratories from Different Countries.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess and compare quality as well as economic aspects of CAD/CAM high strength ceramic three-unit FDP frameworks ordered from dental laboratories located in emerging countries and Switzerland. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The master casts of six cases were sent to five dental laboratories located in Thailand (Bangkok), China (Peking and Shenzhen), Turkey (Izmir), and Switzerland (Bern). Each laboratory was using a different CAD/CAM system. The clinical fit of the frameworks was qualitatively assessed, and the thickness of the framework material, the connector height, the width, and the diameter were evaluated using a measuring sensor. The analysis of the internal fit of the frameworks was performed by means of a replica technique, whereas the inner and outer surfaces of the frameworks were evaluated for traces of postprocessing and damage to the intaglio surface with light and electronic microscopes. Groups (dental laboratories and cases) were compared for statistically significant differences using Mann-Whitney U-tests after Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: An acceptable clinical fit was found at 97.9% of the margins produced in laboratory E, 87.5% in B, 93.7% in C, 79.2% in A, and 62.5% in D. The mean framework thicknesses were not statistically significantly different for the premolar regions; however, for the molar area 4/8 of the evaluated sites were statistically significantly different. Circumference, surface, and width of the connectors produced in the different laboratories were statistically significantly different but not the height. There were great differences in the designs for the pontic and connector regions, and some of the frameworks would not be recommended for clinical use. Traces of heavy postprocessing were found in frameworks from some of the laboratories. The prices per framework ranged from US$177 to US$896. CONCLUSIONS: By ordering laboratory work in developing countries, a considerable price reduction was obtained compared to the price level in Switzerland. Despite the use of the standardized CAD/CAM chains of production in all laboratories, a large variability in the quality aspects, such as clinical marginal fit, connector and pontic design, as well as postprocessing traces was noted. Recommended sound handling of postprocessing was not applied in all laboratories. Dentists should be aware of the true and factitious advantages of CAD/CAM production chains and not lose control over the process.

Credibility and Confidence in Your Dental Laboratory Work-How Quality Assurance Systems Can Be Used in the Manufacturing of Individual Custom-Made Dental Devices.

Manufacturing of custom-made dental devices such as removable dentures, fixed prosthodontics and orthodontics are subject to the requirements of the Medical Devices Directive (MDD). Many dental laboratories often enhance these requirements by implementing quality assurance procedures that then provide enhanced consistency. This paper provided a personal view of some of the systems currently being used in dental laboratories to provide a quality assured product and associated issues.

Standards, Regulation and Registration of Dental Laboratories. An Industry Update.

State dental associations are showing increased interest in maintaining current standards and regulations affecting the dental laboratory industry as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration. The domestic dental laboratory industry is being significantly stressed by foreign competition, rapid technology development and unprecedented consolidation, which are changing the way that prosthetic devices and restorations are manufactured and delivered to dentists. Of paramount importance to the prescribing dentist is the accurate documentation of the source and materials being used in prostheses being delivered to patients.

Electronic laboratory quality assurance program: A method of enhancing the prosthodontic curriculum and addressing accreditation standards.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: An electronic quality assurance (eQA) program was developed to replace a paper-based system and to address standards introduced by the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) and to improve educational outcomes. This eQA program provides feedback to predoctoral dental students on prosthodontic laboratory steps at New York University College of Dentistry. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the eQA program of performing laboratory quality assurance with the former paper-based format. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fourth-year predoctoral dental students (n=334) who experienced both the paper-based and the electronic version of the quality assurance program were surveyed about their experiences. Additionally, data extracted from the eQA program were analyzed to identify areas of weakness in the curriculum. RESULTS: The study findings revealed that 73.8% of the students preferred the eQA program to the paper-based version. The average number of treatments that did not pass quality assurance standards was 119.5 per month. This indicated a 6.34% laboratory failure rate. Further analysis of these data revealed that 62.1% of the errors were related to fixed prosthodontic treatment, 27.9% to partial removable dental prostheses, and 10% to complete removable dental prostheses in the first 18 months of program implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The eQA program was favored by dental students who have experienced both electronic and paper-based versions of the system. Error type analysis can yield the ability to create customized faculty standardization sessions and refine the didactic and clinical teaching of the predoctoral students. This program was also able to link patient care activity with the student's laboratory activities, thus addressing the latest requirements of the CODA regarding the competence of graduates in evaluating laboratory work related to their patient care.

The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges: an assessment of the work received at three commercial dental laboratories. assessing qualities of impressions that may lead to occlusal discrepancies with indirect restorations.

There are few published studies that directly assess the quality of impressions for crowns and bridges in the UK. This paper considers aspects of impression quality with particular attention to factors causing potential occlusal discrepancies in the final restoration. To this end three dental laboratories were visited over a 3-month period. All impressions for conventional crown and bridgework that arrived on the days of the visits were examined and assessed against criteria defined on a custom-designed assessment form. A total of 206 impression cases were considered in this study. Flexible impression trays were used for 65% of working impressions. Their use was more common for NHS work than for private work. 31.9% of all alginate impressions examined were not adequately fixed to the tray. Visible contamination of impressions was not uncommon.

Implementation of a laboratory quality assurance program: the Louisville experience.

Remakes, or the refabrication of dental prostheses, can occur as a result of inherent inaccuracies in both clinical and laboratory procedures. Because dental schools manage large numbers of predoctoral dental students with limited familiarity and expertise as related to clinical prosthodontic techniques, it is likely these schools will experience an elevated incidence of laboratory remakes and their ramifications. The University of Louisville School of Dentistry, not unlike other dental schools, has experienced remakes associated with both fixed and removable prosthodontic procedures. Limitations in faculty standardization and variable enforcement of established preclinical protocols have been identified as variables associated with the high percentage of remakes documented. The purpose of this study was to introduce the implementation of a new multidepartmental quality assurance program designed to increase consistency and quality in both information provided to commercial dental laboratories and the prostheses returned. The program has shown to be advantageous in terms of cost-effectiveness and treatment outcomes. A statistically significant decrease in remake percentages has been recorded from inception of this program in December 2010 until December 2012. Furthermore, this program has resulted in more consistent communication between the dental school and commercial dental laboratories, among faculty members, and between faculty and students.

Dental laboratory technology education in China: current situation and challenges.

Modern dentistry and dental education in China were first introduced from abroad by Dr. Lindsay in 1907. However, advancements in the field of dental laboratory technology did not occur to the same degree in specialties such as prosthodontics and orthodontics. Since the 1990s, orders from abroad demanding dental appliances surged as the image of China as the "world's factory" strengthened. The assembly line model, in which technicians work like simple procedure workers, was rapidly applied to denture production, while the traditional education system and apprenticeship systems demonstrated little progress in these years. The lack of advancement in dental laboratory technology education caused insufficient development in China's dental technology industry. In order to alter the situation, a four-year dental laboratory technology undergraduate educational program was established in 2005 by West China School of Stomatology, Sichuan University (WCSS, SCU). This program was based on SCU's undergraduate education and WCSS's junior college education systems. The program introduced scientific methods in relevant subjects into laboratory technicians' training and made many improvements in the availability of trained faculty, textbooks, laboratory facilities, and curriculum.

Laboratory quality assurance in the Department of Restorative Dentistry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Dentistry.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate data collected in University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry (UIC COD) laboratory quality assurance (QA) forms, analyze the collected data, and create a report of the findings. The goals of the study were to (1) identify the most common mistakes occurring during laboratory and clinical procedures when performing prosthodontic treatment, (2) note the incidence and trends of mistakes made by D3, D4, and IDDP2 students, and (3) observe any differences in the types of mistakes made by D3, D4, and IDDP2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: QA data from June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2009 were evaluated based on forms gathered from the QA dental laboratory from all D3, D4, and IDDP2 students' submissions. All students had graduated from the UIC COD at the time of collection. Data were recorded for type of errors made in submission of laboratory work (Indirect Restorations [IR], Removable Partial Dentures [RPD], Complete Dentures [CD]), year of student in dental school (D3, D4, IDDP2), and frequency of rejection for each respective student. The frequency of common mistakes were pooled, evaluated, and reported by respective class year. RESULTS: The five most common laboratory submission errors for D3, D4, and IDDP2 students were nearly the same among student years for IR, RPD, and CD. D4 students had disproportionately higher numbers of work rejections compared to D3 and IDDP2 students. CONCLUSIONS: D4 students had a higher percentage of laboratory submission errors compared to D3 students for all laboratory procedures. There were similar types of errors noted between foreign-trained students (IDDP2) and domestically trained students (D3, D4).