RESUMO
Background: Concerning about the quality of room air has increased exponentially. Specially in dental clinicswhere diary practice is characterized by the important generation of aerosols.Material and Methods: An in vitro model was used in which samples were collected from the surfaces and roomair of a dental clinic before and after the use of an OH˙ radical generator.Results: A total of 1260 samples were collected for bacteriological analysis and 14 samples for the detection ofSARS-CoV-2. Following OH˙ treatment, the tested surface samples showed a decrease in the number of colonyforming units (CFUs) of 76.9% in TSA culture medium. The circulating room air samples in turn showed adecrease in CFUs of 66.7% in Sabouraud medium and 71.4% in Mannitol agar medium. No presence of SARS-CoV-2 was observed on the surface of the face shield.Conclusions: The disinfectant technology based on the use of hydroxyl radicals (OH˙) is effective in reducing thepresence of moulds and yeasts and Staphylococcus in the air, and in reducing total aerobic bacteria on the testedsurfaces.(AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Técnicas In Vitro , Radical Hidroxila , Clínicas Odontológicas , Desinfecção , Incrustação Biológica , Odontologia , Saúde Bucal , Medicina Bucal , Higiene BucalRESUMO
Background: A systematic review was carried out to compare the disinfectant capacity of hydroxyl radicals (OH-) versus other products commonly used for disinfecting the air and surfaces. Material and Methods: A literature search was made of the Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE) and Scopus databases. "In vitro" studies evaluating disinfection methods applicable to several surfaces and room air were included in the search. The search was carried out in April 2022, with no restrictions in terms of language or publication date. Results: Of the 308 articles identified from the initial search, 8 were included for the quantitative analysis. All publications corresponded to experimental "in vitro" studies. Seven of them evaluated biocidal action against bacteria, and only two assessed activity against viral loads. The generation of contaminants secondary to application of the disinfectants was only analyzed in one of the studies, with the conclusion that the production of peroxyl radicals (RO2) derived from the oxidation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is greater when chemical surface disinfectants are used versus air disinfection systems. Conclusions: The disinfection capacities of the currently available methods are similar, and none of them are able to replace the use of additional physical protection measures. Key words:Disinfection methods, hydroxyl radical, environment, surfaces, dentistry.
RESUMO
Background: Periapical surgery focuses on the treatment of teeth with persistent periapical lesions when ortho-grade root canal treatment fails. Although MTA® is the gold standard material for retrograde filling, Biodentine®- a tricalcium silicate-based cement - has been proposed in order to resolve several of its limitations. A systematicreview has been carried out to compare the physicochemical properties of Biodentine® versus MTA® as root-endfilling material in periapical surgery.Material and Methods: An electronic search was conducted by two independent examiners during March 2020 inthe Cochrane, PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus databases. In addition, a manual search was made in specializedjournals. Comparative human or in vitro studies that evaluated bond strength, the presence of marginal gap andsealing ability were included. No restriction on publication date was applied. Animal studies, clinical cases, casesseries and expert opinions were excluded.Results: After analyzing 147 initially selected studies, 13 publications were included. Regarding bond strength,the studies seemed to evidence better performance of Biodentine® in both acidic and blood contaminatedenvironments. In relation to the presence of marginal gap and sealing ability, the studies yielded contradictory results. According to some authors, the sealing ability of Biodentine® is greater than that of MTA® during the first 24hours, though both materials prove equal after one week. Other authors recorded no significant differences.Conclusions: Considering the limitations and heterogeneity of the studies included, there is not sufficient evidence toconfirm the clinical superiority of Biodentine® as a root-end filling material in periapical surgery.(AU)
