RESUMO
AIMS: During the COVID-19 pandemic the search for complementary methods to enhance manual disinfection in dental and medical practices raised relevance. We sought evidence for the addition of ultraviolet-C (UV-C) disinfection to manual cleaning protocols -and whether it improves the logarithmic (log) reduction of surface pathogen colonies. METHODS: This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the number CRD420200193961. Six electronic sources were consulted looking for clinical trials performed in healthcare environments in which pathogens were quantified by colony-forming unit (CFU)-enumeration before and after interventions, all databases were last consulted on May 2021. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2). The certainty of the evidence was qualified according to the Classification of Recommendations, Evaluation, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 1012 records and 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All included studies reported enhanced disinfection in the UV-C arm; most of them reported 1-log to 2-log reduction in approximately 10 to 25 min. Only three studies reached a 5-log and 6-log reduction. When manual cleaning was performed alone, only two studies reported a 1-log reduction using a chlorine-based disinfectant. We detected a high risk of bias in 1 study. Certainty of evidence was classified as moderate and low. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence points out the effectiveness of UV-C technology in reducing manual cleaning failures, enhancing the logarithmic reduction of surface pathogen colonies. However, the safety and success of these devices will depend on several physical and biological factors. A judicious project must precede their use in clinical and medical offices under the supervision of a physicist or other trained professional.
RESUMO
O sucesso clínico de materiais resinosos é dependente de uma adequada polimerização. Diversos materiais fotoativados são utilizados frequentemente nas clínicas-escola de Odontologia. O objetivo desse estudo foi avaliar o nível de conhecimento dos acadêmicos do 10º período de Odontologia do Centro Universitário Maurício de Nassau, Recife/PE,sobre fotopolimerização, por meio de questionário. Os dados foram tabulados e analisados por meio de estatísticas descritivas, teste Qui-quadrado de Pearson e teste Exato de Fischer, com nível de significância de 5% (p<0,05). Os resultados demonstram que 83,8%dos estudantesnão possuem fotopolimerizador, 72,9% não conhecem a potência do aparelho, 56,2% não sabem qual é a potência mínima ideal e apenas 8,5% sabem o nome do aparelho aferidor da irradiância / potência. Além disso, 48,5% não sabem o comprimento de onda ideal para fotoativação de resina composta e 69,2% desconhecemo tipo de aparelho que utilizam (monowaveou poliwave).Em relação ao tempo de fotopolimerização, 60,8% afirmaram utilizar20 segundos em resinas compostas convencionais e 38,5% utilizam por40 segundos em resinas compostas Bulk-fill. Embora 84,6% afirmem usar aparelhos fotopolimerizadores frequentemente, apenas 26,9% sabem a distância ideal da ponteira à restauração. Além disso, 51,5% relataram que fazem a limpeza e desinfecção com álcool 70GL e 45,4% usam barreira plástica. Nesse contexto, pode-se concluir que o nível do conhecimento dos acadêmicos em relação à fotopolimerização foi insatisfatório, exigindo uma abordagem e avaliaçãomais efetivaspara que os discentes tenham consciência da importância clínica deste procedimento e suas consequências (AU).
The clinical success of resin materials depends on adequate curing. Several light cured materials are frequently used in dental school clinics. This study aimed to assess the knowledge of students from the 10th period of Dentistry at Maurício de Nassau University Center, Recife/PE, about light curing, using a questionnaire. Data were tabulated and analyzed by descriptive statistics, Pearson chi-square test and Fisher exact test, at a significance level of 5% (p<0.05). The results show that 83.8% of studentsdo not have a light curing unit, 72.9% do not know the device power, 56.2% do not know the ideal minimum power and only 8.5% know the name of the device that measures the irradiance/power. Also, 48.5% do not know the ideal wavelength for light curing of composite resin and 69.2% do not know the type of device they use (monowave or polywave). Regarding the light curing time, 60.8% stated they used 20 seconds in conventional composite resins and 38.5% used 40 seconds in bulk-fill composite resins. Although 84.6% stated that they use light curing units frequently, only 26.9% know the ideal distance from the tip to the restoration. Additionally, 51.5% reported performing cleaning and disinfection with 70GL alcohol and 45.4% use a plastic barrier. In this context, it can be concluded that the knowledge of students regarding light curing was unsatisfactory, requiring a more effective approach and evaluation so that the students may be aware of the clinical importance of this procedure and its consequences (AU).
