|
Hepatitis C and
Boot Camp Paris Island 1968
Lancet 1991 Dec 21-28;338(8782-8783):1539-42 Klein RS, Freeman K, Taylor PE, Stevens CE Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York 10467.
Since dentists have numerous patients and are exposed to blood,
they are likely to have the maximum risk.... Anti-HCV was found in 4
(9.3%) of 43 oral surgeons compared with 4 (0.97%) of 413 other dentists
(OR 10.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 58). Our findings show that dentists are at
increased risk for hepatitis C infection. All health-care workers should
regard patients as potentially infected with a communicable bloodborne
agent. Comments: in: Lancet 1992 Feb 1;339(8788):304 Comment
in: Lancet 1992 May 9;339(8802):1178-9 PMID: 1683969, UI: 92079638
Hygiene risk for dental patients
HEPATITIS C: THE NEW DANGER Risk and prevention of hepatitis C virus infection: implications for dentistry. Cleveland JL, Gooch BF, Shearer BG. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:641-647. This article provides an excellent overview describing the latest information on hepatitis C with clinical implications for dental providers. Published reports have warned dental health care workers about the potential risk of infection with bloodborne pathogens (including the hepatitis C virus [HCV]) during patient treatment. HCV is a major cause of chronic liver disease in the United States resulting in 8,000 to 10,000 deaths annually. The most efficient mode of HCV transmission is through percutaneous exposure. Most studies suggest the prevalence of HCV infection in dentistry is about 1 to 2 percent, indicating that the occupational risk is very low. There is no effective vaccine for hepatitis C due to the virus' ability to escape the immune system through mutations. The CDC does not recommend immune globulin for postexposure prophylaxis at this time. Prevention of occupational transmission of HCV in dentistry continues to rely on the use of universal precautions, including the appropriate use of barrier precautions and the safe handling of sharp instruments. Currently no recommendations exist regarding practice restrictions for health providers with hepatitis C. Anti-HCV
antibodies are detectable in gingival crevicular fluid from HCV positive
subjects. In the present research, as an alternative biologic source to blood, gingival crevicular fluid has been collected for purposes of assaying hepatitis C immunologic markers. Fifteen HCV EIA positive subjects and fifteen HCV EIA negative subjects have been enrolled. A sample of blood, saliva and gingival crevicular fluid has been collected for each subject and anti-HCV antibodies were determined by the anti-HCV Ab rapid test (standard to WHO 1st IRP 75/537 distributed by Thema ricerca s.r.l.). In a previous study anti-HCV Ab rapid test showed a very high accuracy and the entire procedure takes only about 3 minutes. Results of the present study confirmed the very high sensitivity and specificity (100%) of the test when applied on whole blood, while no efficacy has been showed to reveal anti-HCV antibodies in any sample of whole saliva. As far as gingival crevicular fluid is concerned, anti-HCV antibodies were detected in 12 out of 15 samples from HCV positive subjects (80%) suggesting that HCV virus in the same way of anti-HCV antibodies may enter the mouth through the gingival crevicular fluid and then spread outside the mouth via saliva. The gingival crevicular fluid could be a valid alternative to blood in order to rapidly detect HCV positive patient and the association with the HCV rapid test may represent an useful and rapid instrument to be applied in routine dental practice. PERCUTANEOUS INJURIES: WHO'S TRULY AT GREATEST RISK? Percutaneous injuries among dental health care workers. Kerr SP, Blank LW. Gen Dent 1999;47:146-151. Percutaneous injuries have the potential to transmit bloodborne pathogens in the dental health care environment. The risk of bloodborne transmission is dependent upon the type of injury, amount of blood, virus titer, resistance of health care worker, response to environment, virulence of pathogen, and procedure during which the injury occurred. Prevention still remains the best method of reducing occupational transmission. There are limited reports on percutaneous injuries in dentistry, with no prospective studies involving the entire dental team in a variety of private practice settings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a difference exists in the rate of percutaneous injuries among dentists, dental hygienists, and dental assistants in generalized and specialty private practices. Also this study compared the number of extraoral and intraoral percutaneous injuries among dental health care workers as a whole, and within each occupational group. The findings were that dental assistants reported the highest number of percutaneous injuries. Extraoral injuries occurred with greater frequency (90 percent) than intraoral percutaneous injuries for all occupational groups and as a whole. Hepatitis C Infections May Come From Routine Dentistry By Kate Foster The Scotsman July 25, 2001 Thousands of people infected with the life-threatening hepatitis C virus may have caught it during routine dental treatment. Health campaigners warned that current practices in dental surgery, including the way tools are sterilized, may not be rigorous enough to remove the risk of transmission of the highly infectious virus between patients. Although intravenous drug use is the most common method of transmission, health workers say dental practices could be the source of infection for a "substantial number" of the 38 percent of sufferers for whom the source of infection is not known. In Scotland, 10,000 people are known to be infected with the disease, which can cause liver disease and cancer and is 100 times more infectious than HIV. But because sufferers can live for 20 years before showing any symptoms, experts believe that a further 25,000 Scots are unknowingly infected. Jeff Frew, the secretary of Capital C, an Edinburgh-based support group for sufferers, said many people do not know how they became infected and he believes there is a risk of infection from dentists' tools. His claims have been backed by Nigel Hughes, the chief executive of the British Liver Trust, who said the risk of infection from dental surgeries "could not be ignored". Mr. Frew said "Many of our hepatitis C positive clients do not fall into any of the risk categories for catching the infection. "Dental treatment is the only time when members of the public come into contact with blood and there's a huge throughput of patients receiving dental treatment every day. " He added: "Although dentists sterilize their tool-heads, there is a risk of infection from the actual tools themselves, from the machinery that drives the tools. Blood could gather behind the drive mechanisms of tools, which could lead to transmission. "In order for there to be no risk of infection, dentists would have to have two or three spare sets of tools in order to ensure all equipment was sterilized properly, and at the moment that is not the case. "This is a public health concern of immense proportions." According to figures from the Scottish Center for Infection and Environmental Health, 58 per cent of hepatitis C sufferers are known to have injected drugs. About 7 percent are thought to have picked up the virus during surgery, from blood transfusions, from sex with an infected partner or from receiving tattoos. For 38 percent of sufferers, no information on the source of infection is available and campaigners believe that some people in this category may have been infected during dental treatment. Mr. Frew added: "There are people who are infected who were not injecting drug users, who have not had blood transfusions, who do not have tattoos or pierced ears and who have only ever had one sexual partner. They must have got it from somewhere, but at the moment we do not know what the other sources are. I believe that most of them caught it during dental treatment, or at least the potential is there." Mr. Hughes said: "One problem lies with the mechanical dental handpiece which sucks fluid, including blood and other matter, from the mouth . After treatment, if the dentist adheres to guidelines, it is flushed through very rigorously and left to rest for some time. "It would be possible to catch hepatitis C in this way if the equipment is not rigorously cleaned and sterilized. There's always a distinct possibility, especially if the dental practice session is very busy." However, Mr. Frew believes the day-to-day practice of dentists should be reviewed. He said: " It is up to the dental profession to prove that there is no risk and until they do we must assume that there is a risk. We can trust dentists to adhere to guidelines, but how can we keep track of how they carry out their day-to-day surgeries?" There is also the question of the degree to which dental staff are at occupational risk of HCV infection. Presence of hepatitis C virus in saliva HCV RNA has been detected in saliva in the dental setting, both with and without blood contamination. In one study of 26 anti-HCV-positive patients, of whom 11 were coinfected with HIV, HCV RNA was detected in the sera of 23 (88%) and in the saliva of 4 (17%) of these viraemic patients. The authors suggest that HCV is present in saliva in 31 Chapter 4 -Epidemiology of the hepatitis C virus less than 25 per cent of HCV viraemic people, and the virus in saliva is restricted to the cell fraction, so that saliva may serve as a nonparenteral transmission route of HCV but at a low probability, which would be increased by blood contamination of saliva during and after oral surgery (Chen et al 1995). A second study of 21 HCV-seropositive patients with haemophilia attending an Oral Surgery Unit, all of whom were HCV-RNA positive and six of whom were also HIV-antibody positive, found HCV in saliva from 10 of the subjects (8 HIV seronegative, 2 HIV seropositive) (Roy et al 1996). The Scotsman July 25, 2001 Being a dentist myself, I am very well aware of the spread of bloodborne pathogens in dentistry. Since dentistry was 'deregulated' in the late '70s and taken over by managed care companies - dentists have little control over clinic functions such as sterilization protocol. There is so much pressure to PRODUCE, that corners are cut by the management companies at the expense of the dentist and patient. Healthcare 'consumers' today want free or low cost health care -well this is exactly what they are getting, plus bonuses like Hep C and CJD (mad cow disease). RJ Lewis, DDS Hepatitis C linked to dentists THOUSANDS of hepatitis C sufferers may have contracted the life- threatening virus during dental treatment, health campaigners warned yesterday. It is feared current methods of sterilizing dental equipment may not be effective in removing the risk of transmission of the virus, which is 100 times more infectious than HIV. Jeff Frew, the secretary of Capital C, a support group for
hepatitis C sufferers, told The Scotsman that of the 38 per cent
of people whose source of infection is unknown, a "substantial
number" could have been infected at the dentist. He said: "Many
people with the virus do not fall into the risk categories and
do not know how they became infected. "Dental treatment is the
only time when large numbers of the public come into contact
with blood. We believe that, although dentists HCV and Dentistry By Darlene Morrow, BSc The transmission of HCV can occur via improper handling
and cleaning of dental instruments. Although the risk is small it is a
proven source of infection (1, 2). Therefore it is our responsibility to
help our dentists and to see that our HCV stops with us and is not
passed on. Detection of hepatitis C virus-RNA by polymerase chain reaction in dental surgeries. Piazza M; Borgia G; Picciotto L; Nappa S; Cicciarello S;
Orlando R Institute of Infectious Diseases, University of Naples
Federico II, Italy. J Med Virol 45: 40-2 (1995) OSHA Preambles - Bloodborne Pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030)Revision Date: Jul 30 1999
Most healthcare workers who have transmitted to patients have several
factors in common (Exs. 6-476; 6-471): Failure of gloves and other protective devices to prevent transmission of hepatitis B virus to oral surgeons. JAMA 1988 May 6;259(17):2558-60 Reingold AL, Kane MA, Hightower AW Department of Biomedical and Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. A survey of 434 oral surgeons was conducted to examine risk factors for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Overall, 112 (26%) of the participants demonstrated serologic evidence of past or current infection with HBV. Seropositivity was significantly associated with age, number of years in practice, and year of graduation from dental school but not with other variables examined, such as the number of patients seen annually or the number of patients seen who were at high risk of HBV infection. The strong correlation between years in practice and seropositivity was unaffected by reported use of gloves, face masks, or eye shields. The use of gloves and other protective devices does not appear to offer substantial protection against HBV exposure in oral surgeons, and all oral surgeons should receive HBV vaccine. PMID: 3357229, UI: 88188297 Veterans Administration cooperative study on hepatitis and dentistry. Am Dent Assoc 1986 Sep;113(3):390-6 Schiff ER, de Medina MD, Kline SN, Johnson GR, Chan YK, Shorey J, Calhoun N, Irish EF Personnel in the VA dental facilities were screened for the detection of viral hepatitis and identification of factors implicating infectivity. A total of 963 personnel from 126 dental facilities throughout the United States voluntarily participated in the study. The rate of seroconversion for any hepatitis B markers was approximately 1% per year. Serial positive tests for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen or antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (or both) were present in 16.2% of dentists and 13.0% of dental auxiliary personnel. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons composed the highest prevalence occupation (24.0%), and clinical personnel composed the lowest prevalence occupation (8.9%). There was a significant association between years in dental environment and serological positivity for viral B infection. The dentists and dental auxiliary personnel had significant linear trends of increasing serological positivity with years in the dental environment. Although a majority of personnel reported wearing gloves while treating high-risk patients or performing invasive procedures, inadequate prophylactic measures were exercised for most patients undergoing a variety of less invasive procedures. The results of the study show the need for an active immunization program against type B viral infection for dental and dental auxiliary personnel, preferably before the initial exposure to the professional environment. PMID: 3531282, UI: 87009463
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER AIDS VIRUS SURVIVES DENTAL-TOOL WASH HEAT
STERILIZATION IS URGED. A STUDY FOUND WASHINGTHE TOOLS WITH
DISINFECTANT DIDN'T DO THE JOB.
TEXT: The viruses that cause AIDS and hepatitis B can survive
within dental tools that are washed with disinfectant but not
heat-sterilized, posing a potential risk of disease
transmission, according to a new study. The recent case of a Florida dentist who transmitted the virus to five patients ignited widespread fear about catching AIDS from dental procedures. But the infected patients in Florida got the virus from the dentist, not from contaminated equipment, according to investigations Viral hepatitis as an occupational hazard of dentists. J Am Dent Assoc 1975 May;90(5):992-7 Mosley JW, White E To estimate the risk of viral hepatitis for practicing dentists, a questionnaire survey was conducted in the greater Los Angeles area among the part-time faculty of the University of Southern California School of Dentistry. An icteric episode diagnosed as hepatitis had been experienced by 11, representing 3.9% of the 285 dentists to whom questionnaires were mailed or 4.5% of the 242 respondents. All illnesses occurred after graduation from dental school, and five were after 1967. For general dentists, the minimal frequency was 2.7 (5 of 187 in the sample). Specialists with emphasis in surgical forms of dentistry had hepatitis with a significantly higher frequency: 3 of 19 oral surgeons; 1 of 13 periodontists; and 1 of 9 endodontists. The risk did not vary in this sample with the proportion of young adult patients (15 to 29 years of age) in the practice or recognizable illicit self-injection among patients. Auxiliary dental personnel seem to have a lower risk than dentists themselves. Measures to reduce the hazard are indicated, but at present these are confined to greater care in avoiding percutaneous introduction. PMID: 123933, UI: 75152152 Hepatitis B and dental personnel: transmission to patients and prevention issues. J Am Dent Assoc 1983 Feb;106(2):219-22Ahtone J, Goodman RA Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is considered an occupational risk for dental professionals. The Centers for Disease Control have participated in eight investigations regarding dental professionals who were suspected of transmitting HBV infection to their patients. This article summarizes the findings of the investigations, the postulated mechanism of transmission of HBV, control measures suggested, and follow-up of the dental practice for those dentists who were chronic carriers of hepatitis B surface antigen. The approach by the centers for managing dental professionals who are HBsAg positive and those dental professionals who are HBsAg positive and implicated as transmitting HBV infection to patients are outlined. If HBV transmission cannot be interrupted, by suggested measures, then more restrictive measures should be decided on by state or local health officials, or both. These could include removal of the practitioner's license. HBV-infected dental personnel can transmit HBV infection to their patients. The measures suggested for the HBV carrier are designed to allow the dental practitioner to continue practice, but, at the same time, give maximum protection to the patient. PMID: 6572677, UI: 83162024
Cross-contamination potential with dental
equipment.
Prevention of
infection in dental procedures.
Microbiological
evaluation of a newly designed dental air-turbine handpiece for
anti-cross contaminations.
Prevention of
microbial contamination of the dental unit caused by suction into the
turbine drive air lines.
Bacterial
adherence and contamination during radiographic processing.
Prevention of bacterial contamination of
water in dental units.
May 28, 1993 / 42(RR-8) Recommended
Infection-Control Practices for Dentistry, 1993 Summary
This
document updates previously published CDC recommendations for
infection-control practices in dentistry to reflect new data,
materials, technology, and equipment. When implemented, these
recommendations should reduce the risk of disease transmission
in the dental environment, from patient to dental health-care
worker (DHCW), from DHCW to patient, and from patient to
patient. Based on principles of infection control, the document
delineates specific recommendations related to vaccination of
DHCWs; protective attire and barrier techniques; handwashing and
care of hands; the use and care of sharp instruments and
needles; sterilization or disinfection of instruments; cleaning
and disinfection of the dental unit and environmental surfaces;
disinfection and the dental laboratory; use and care of
handpieces, antiretraction valves, and other intraoral dental
devices attached to air and water lines of dental units;
single-use disposable instruments; the handling of biopsy
specimens; use of extracted teeth in dental educational
settings; disposal of waste materials; and implementation of
recommendations. I NTRODUCTIONThis
document updates previously published CDC recommendations for
infection-control practices for dentistry (1-3) and offers
guidance for reducing the risks of disease transmission among
dental health-care workers (DHCWs) and their patients. Although
the principles of infection control remain unchanged, new
technologies, materials, equipment, and data require continuous
evaluation of current infection-control practices. The unique
nature of most dental procedures, instrumentation, and
patient-care settings also may require specific strategies
directed to the prevention of transmission of pathogens among
DHCWs and their patients. Recommended infection-control
practices are applicable to all settings in which dental
treatment is provided. These recommended practices should be
observed in addition to the practices and procedures for worker
protection required by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) final rule on Occupational Exposure to
Bloodborne Pathogens (29 CFR 1910.1030), which was published in
the Federal Register on December 6, 1991 (4).
Dental patients and DHCWs may be exposed to a variety of
microorganisms via blood or oral or respiratory secretions.
These microorganisms may include cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B
virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), herpes simplex virus types
1 and 2, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Mycobacterium
tuberculosis, staphylococci, streptococci, and other viruses and
bacteria -- specifically, those that infect the upper
respiratory tract. Infections may be transmitted in the dental
operatory through several routes, including direct contact with
blood, oral fluids, or other secretions; indirect contact with
contaminated instruments, operatory equipment, or environmental
surfaces; or contact with airborne contaminants present in
either droplet spatter or aerosols of oral and respiratory
fluids. Infection via any of these routes requires that all
three of the following conditions be present (commonly referred
to as "the chain of infection"): a susceptible host; a pathogen
with sufficient infectivity and numbers to cause infection; and
a portal through which the pathogen may enter the host.
Effective infection-control strategies are intended to break one
or more of these "links" in the chain, thereby preventing
infection. A
set of infection-control strategies common to all health-care
delivery settings should reduce the risk of transmission of
infectious diseases caused by bloodborne pathogens such as HBV
and HIV (2,5-10). Because all infected patients cannot be
identified by medical history, physical examination, or
laboratory tests, CDC recommends that blood and body fluid
precautions be used consistently for all patients (2,5 ). This
extension of blood and body fluid precautions, referred to as
"universal precautions," must be observed routinely in the care
of all dental patients (2). In addition, specific actions have
been recommended to reduce the risk of tuberculosis transmission
in dental and other ambulatory health-care facilities (11).
CONFIRMED TRANSMISSION OF HBV AND HIV IN DENTISTRY
Although the possibility of transmission of bloodborne
infections from DHCWs to patients is considered to be small (12-
15), precise risks have not been quantified in the dental
setting by carefully designed epidemiologic studies. Reports
published from 1970 through 1987 indicate nine clusters in which
patients were infected with HBV associated with treatment by an
infected DHCW (16-25). In addition, transmission of HIV to six
patients of a dentist with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
has been reported (26,27). Transmission of HBV from dentists to
patients has not been reported since 1987, possibly reflecting
such factors as incomplete ascertainment and reporting,
increased adherence to universal precautions -- including
routine glove use by dentists -- and increased levels of
immunity due to use of hepatitis B vaccine. However, isolated
sporadic cases of infection are more difficult to link with a
health-care worker than are outbreaks involving multiple
patients. For both HBV and HIV, the precise event or events
resulting in transmission of infection in the dental setting
have not been determined; epidemiologic and laboratory data
indicate that these infections probably were transmitted from
the DHCWs to patients, rather than from one patient to another
(26,28). Patient-to-patient transmission of bloodborne pathogens
has been reported, however, in several medical settings (29-31).
VACCINES FOR DENTAL HEALTH-CARE WORKERS
Although HBV infection is uncommon among adults in the United
States (1%-2%), serologic surveys have indicated that 10%-30% of
health-care or dental workers show evidence of past or present
HBV infection (6,32). The OSHA bloodborne pathogens final rule
requires that employers make hepatitis B vaccinations available
without cost to their employees who may be exposed to blood or
other infectious materials (4). In addition, CDC recommends that
all workers, including DHCWs, who might be exposed to blood or
blood-contaminated substances in an occupational setting be
vaccinated for HBV (6-8). DHCWs also are at risk for exposure to
and possible transmission of other vaccine-preventable diseases
(33); accordingly, vaccination against influenza, measles,
mumps, rubella, and tetanus may be appropriate for DHCWs.
PROTECTIVE ATTIRE AND BARRIER TECHNIQUES For
protection of personnel and patients in dental-care settings,
medical gloves (latex or vinyl) always must be worn by DHCWs
when there is potential for contacting blood, blood-contaminated
saliva, or mucous membranes (1,2,4-6). Nonsterile gloves are
appropriate for examinations and other nonsurgical procedures
(5); sterile gloves should be used for surgical procedures.
Before treatment of each patient, DHCWs should wash their hands
and put on new gloves; after treatment of each patient or before
leaving the dental operatory, DHCWs should remove and discard
gloves, then wash their hands. DHCWs always should wash their
hands and reglove between patients. Surgical or examination
gloves should not be washed before use; nor should they be
washed, disinfected, or sterilized for reuse. Washing of gloves
may cause "wicking" (penetration of liquids through undetected
holes in the gloves) and is not recommended (5). Deterioration
of gloves may be caused by disinfecting agents, oils, certain
oil-based lotions, and heat treatments, such as autoclaving.
Chin-length plastic face shields or surgical masks and
protective eyewear should be worn when splashing or spattering
of blood or other body fluids is likely, as is common in
dentistry (2,5,6,34,35). When a mask is used, it should be
changed between patients or during patient treatment if it
becomes wet or moist. Face shields or protective eyewear should
be washed with an appropriate cleaning agent and, when visibly
soiled, disinfected between patients.
Protective clothing such as reusable or disposable gowns,
laboratory coats, or uniforms should be worn when clothing is
likely to be soiled with blood or other body fluids (2,5,6).
Reusable protective clothing should be washed, using a normal
laundry cycle, according to the instructions of detergent and
machine manufacturers. Protective clothing should be changed at
least daily or as soon as it becomes visibly soiled (9).
Protective garments and devices (including gloves, masks, and
eye and face protection) should be removed before personnel exit
areas of the dental office used for laboratory or patient-care
activities.
Impervious-backed paper, aluminum foil, or plastic covers should
be used to protect items and surfaces (e.g., light handles or
x-ray unit heads) that may become contaminated by blood or
saliva during use and that are difficult or impossible to clean
and disinfect. Between patients, the coverings should be removed
(while DHCWs are gloved), discarded, and replaced (after
ungloving and washing of hands) with clean material.
Appropriate use of rubber dams, high-velocity air evacuation,
and proper patient positioning should minimize the formation of
droplets, spatter, and aerosols during patient treatment. In
addition, splash shields should be used in the dental
laboratory.
HANDWASHING AND CARE OF HANDS
DHCWs should wash their hands before and after treating each
patient (i.e., before glove placement and after glove removal)
and after barehanded touching of inanimate objects likely to be
contaminated by blood, saliva, or respiratory secretions
(2,5,6,9). Hands should be washed after removal of gloves
because gloves may become perforated during use, and DHCWs'
hands may become contaminated through contact with patient
material. Soap and water will remove transient microorganisms
acquired directly or indirectly from patient contact (9);
therefore, for many routine dental procedures, such as
examinations and nonsurgical techniques, handwashing with plain
soap is adequate. For surgical procedures, an antimicrobial
surgical handscrub should be used (10). When
gloves are torn, cut, or punctured, they should be removed as
soon as patient safety permits. DHCWs then should wash their
hands thoroughly and reglove to complete the dental procedure.
DHCWs who have exudative lesions or weeping dermatitis,
particularly on the hands, should refrain from all direct
patient care and from handling dental patient-care equipment
until the condition resolves (12). Guidelines addressing
management of occupational exposures to blood and other fluids
to which universal precautions apply have been published
previously (6-8,36). USE
AND CARE OF SHARP INSTRUMENTS AND NEEDLES
Sharp items (e.g., needles, scalpel blades, wires) contaminated
with patient blood and saliva should be considered as
potentially infective and handled with care to prevent injuries
(2,5,6). Used
needles should never be recapped or otherwise manipulated
utilizing both hands, or any other technique that involves
directing the point of a needle toward any part of the body
(2,5,6). Either a one-handed "scoop" technique or a mechanical
device designed for holding the needle sheath should be
employed. Used disposable syringes and needles, scalpel blades,
and other sharp items should be placed in appropriate
puncture-resistant containers located as close as is practical
to the area in which the items were used (2,5,6). Bending or
breaking of needles before disposal requires unnecessary
manipulation and thus is not recommended.
Before attempting to remove needles from nondisposable
aspirating syringes, DHCWs should recap them to prevent
injuries. Either of the two acceptable techniques may be used.
For procedures involving multiple injections with a single
needle, the unsheathed needle should be placed in a location
where it will not become contaminated or contribute to
unintentional needlesticks between injections. If the decision
is made to recap a needle between injections, a one-handed
"scoop" technique or a mechanical device designed to hold the
needle sheath is recommended.
STERILIZATION OR DISINFECTION OF INSTRUMENTS Indications for
Sterilization or Disinfection of Dental Instruments As
with other medical and surgical instruments, dental instruments
are classified into three categories -- critical, semicritical,
or noncritical -- depending on their risk of transmitting
infection and the need to sterilize them between uses (9,37-40).
Each dental practice should classify all instruments as follows:
Critical. Surgical and other instruments used to penetrate soft
tissue or bone are classified as critical and should be
sterilized after each use. These devices include forceps,
scalpels, bone chisels, scalers, and burs.
Semicritical. Instruments such as mirrors and amalgam condensers
that do not penetrate soft tissues or bone but contact oral
tissues are classified as semicritical. These devices should be
sterilized after each use. If, however, sterilization is not
feasible because the instrument will be damaged by heat, the
instrument should receive, at a minimum, high-level
disinfection.
Noncritical. Instruments or medical devices such as external
components of x-ray heads that come into contact only with
intact skin are classified as noncritical. Because these
noncritical surfaces have a relatively low risk of transmitting
infection, they may be reprocessed between patients with
intermediate-level or low-level disinfection (see Cleaning and
Disinfection of Dental Unit and Environmental Surfaces) or
detergent and water washing, depending on the nature of the
surface and the degree and nature of the contamination (9,38).
Methods of Sterilization or Disinfection of Dental Instruments
Before sterilization or high-level disinfection, instruments
should be cleaned thoroughly to remove debris. Persons involved
in cleaning and reprocessing instruments should wear heavy-duty
(reusable utility) gloves to lessen the risk of hand injuries.
Placing instruments into a container of water or
disinfectant/detergent as soon as possible after use will
prevent drying of patient material and make cleaning easier and
more efficient. Cleaning may be accomplished by thorough
scrubbing with soap and water or a detergent solution, or with a
mechanical device (e.g., an ultrasonic cleaner). The use of
covered ultrasonic cleaners, when possible, is recommended to
increase efficiency of cleaning and to reduce handling of sharp
instruments. All
critical and semicritical dental instruments that are heat
stable should be sterilized routinely between uses by steam
under pressure (autoclaving), dry heat, or chemical vapor,
following the instructions of the manufacturers of the
instruments and the sterilizers. Critical and semicritical
instruments that will not be used immediately should be packaged
before sterilization.
Proper functioning of sterilization cycles should be verified by
the periodic use (at least weekly) of biologic indicators (i.e.,
spore tests) (3,9). Heat-sensitive chemical indicators (e.g.,
those that change color after exposure to heat) alone do not
ensure adequacy of a sterilization cycle but may be used on the
outside of each pack to identify packs that have been processed
through the heating cycle. A simple and inexpensive method to
confirm heat penetration to all instruments during each cycle is
the use of a chemical indicator inside and in the center of
either a load of unwrapped instruments or in each multiple
instrument pack (41); this procedure is recommended for use in
all dental practices. Instructions provided by the manufacturers
of medical/dental instruments and sterilization devices should
be followed closely. In
all dental and other health-care settings, indications for the
use of liquid chemical germicides to sterilize instruments
(i.e., "cold sterilization") are limited. For heat-sensitive
instruments, this procedure may require up to 10 hours of
exposure to a liquid chemical agent registered with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a
"sterilant/disinfectant." This sterilization process should be
followed by aseptic rinsing with sterile water, drying, and, if
the instrument is not used immediately, placement in a sterile
container.
EPA-registered "sterilant/disinfectant" chemicals are used to
attain high-level disinfection of heat-sensitive semicritical
medical and dental instruments. The product manufacturers'
directions regarding appropriate concentration and exposure time
should be followed closely. The EPA classification of the liquid
chemical agent (i.e., "sterilant/disinfectant") will be shown on
the chemical label. Liquid chemical agents that are less potent
than the "sterilant/disinfectant" category are not appropriate
for reprocessing critical or semicritical dental instruments.
CLEANING AND DISINFECTION OF DENTAL UNIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SURFACES
After treatment of each patient and at the completion of daily
work activities, countertops and dental unit surfaces that may
have become contaminated with patient material should be cleaned
with disposable toweling, using an appropriate cleaning agent
and water as necessary. Surfaces then should be disinfected with
a suitable chemical germicide. A
chemical germicide registered with the EPA as a "hospital
disinfectant" and labeled for "tuberculocidal" (i.e.,
mycobactericidal) activity is recommended for disinfecting
surfaces that have been soiled with patient material. These
intermediate-level disinfectants include phenolics, iodophors,
and chlorine-containing compounds. Because mycobacteria are
among the most resistant groups of microorganisms, germicides
effective against mycobacteria should be effective against many
other bacterial and viral pathogens (9,38-40,42). A fresh
solution of sodium hypochlorite (household bleach) prepared
daily is an inexpensive and effective intermediate-level
germicide. Concentrations ranging from 500 to 800 ppm of
chlorine (a 1:100 dilution of bleach and tap water or 1/4 cup of
bleach to 1 gallon of water) are effective on environmental
surfaces that have been cleaned of visible contamination.
Caution should be exercised, since chlorine solutions are
corrosive to metals, especially aluminum.
Low-level disinfectants -- EPA-registered "hospital
disinfectants" that are not labeled for "tuberculocidal"
activity (e.g., quaternary ammonium compounds) -- are
appropriate for general housekeeping purposes such as cleaning
floors, walls, and other housekeeping surfaces. Intermediate-
and low-level disinfectants are not recommended for reprocessing
critical or semicritical dental instruments.
DISINFECTION AND THE DENTAL LABORATORY
Laboratory materials and other items that have been used in the
mouth (e.g., impressions, bite registrations, fixed and
removable prostheses, orthodontic appliances) should be cleaned
and disinfected before being manipulated in the laboratory,
whether an on-site or remote location (43). These items also
should be cleaned and disinfected after being manipulated in the
dental laboratory and before placement in the patient's mouth
(2). Because of the increasing variety of dental materials used
intraorally, DHCWs are advised to consult with manufacturers
regarding the stability of specific materials relative to
disinfection procedures. A chemical germicide having at least an
intermediate level of activity (i.e., "tuberculocidal hospital
disinfectant") is appropriate for such disinfection.
Communication between dental office and dental laboratory
personnel regarding the handling and decontamination of supplies
and materials is important. USE
AND CARE OF HANDPIECES, ANTIRETRACTION VALVES, AND OTHER
INTRAORAL DENTAL DEVICES ATTACHED TO AIR AND WATER LINES OF
DENTAL UNITS
Routine between-patient use of a heating process capable of
sterilization (i.e., steam under pressure {autoclaving}, dry
heat, or heat/chemical vapor) is recommended for all high-speed
dental handpieces, low-speed handpiece components used
intraorally, and reusable prophylaxis angles. Manufacturers'
instructions for cleaning, lubrication, and sterilization
procedures should be followed closely to ensure both the
effectiveness of the sterilization process and the longevity of
these instruments. According to manufacturers, virtually all
high-speed and low-speed handpieces in production today are heat
tolerant, and most heat-sensitive models manufactured earlier
can be retrofitted with heat-stable components.
Internal surfaces of high-speed handpieces, low-speed handpiece
components, and prophylaxis angles may become contaminated with
patient material during use. This retained patient material then
may be expelled intraorally during subsequent uses (44-46).
Restricted physical access -- particularly to internal surfaces
of these instruments -- limits cleaning and disinfection or
sterilization with liquid chemical germicides. Surface
disinfection by wiping or soaking in liquid chemical germicides
is not an acceptable method for reprocessing high-speed
handpieces, low-speed handpiece components used intraorally, or
reusable prophylaxis angles.
Because retraction valves in dental unit water lines may cause
aspiration of patient material back into the handpiece and water
lines, antiretraction valves (one-way flow check valves) should
be installed to prevent fluid aspiration and to reduce the risk
of transfer of potentially infective material (47). Routine
maintenance of antiretraction valves is necessary to ensure
effectiveness; the dental unit manufacturer should be consulted
to establish an appropriate maintenance routine.
High-speed handpieces should be run to discharge water and air
for a minimum of 20-30 seconds after use on each patient. This
procedure is intended to aid in physically flushing out patient
material that may have entered the turbine and air or water
lines (46). Use of an enclosed container or high-velocity
evacuation should be considered to minimize the spread of spray,
spatter, and aerosols generated during discharge procedures.
Additionally, there is evidence that overnight or weekend
microbial accumulation in water lines can be reduced
substantially by removing the handpiece and allowing water lines
to run and to discharge water for several minutes at the
beginning of each clinic day (48). Sterile saline or sterile
water should be used as a coolant/irrigator when surgical
procedures involving the cutting of bone are performed.
Other reusable intraoral instruments attached to, but removable
from, the dental unit air or water lines -- such as ultrasonic
scaler tips and component parts and air/water syringe tips --
should be cleaned and sterilized after treatment of each patient
in the same manner as handpieces, which was described
previously. Manufacturers' directions for reprocessing should be
followed to ensure effectiveness of the process as well as
longevity of the instruments. Some
dental instruments have components that are heat sensitive or
are permanently attached to dental unit water lines. Some items
may not enter the patient's oral cavity, but are likely to
become contaminated with oral fluids during treatment
procedures, including, for example, handles or dental unit
attachments of saliva ejectors, high-speed air evacuators, and
air/water syringes. These components should be covered with
impervious barriers that are changed after each use or, if the
surface permits, carefully cleaned and then treated with a
chemical germicide having at least an intermediate level of
activity. As with high-speed dental handpieces, water lines to
all instruments should be flushed thoroughly after the treatment
of each patient; flushing at the beginning of each clinic day
also is recommended.
SINGLE-USE DISPOSABLE INSTRUMENTS
Single-use disposable instruments (e.g., prophylaxis angles;
prophylaxis cups and brushes; tips for high-speed air
evacuators, saliva ejectors, and air/water syringes) should be
used for one patient only and discarded appropriately. These
items are neither designed nor intended to be cleaned,
disinfected, or sterilized for reuse.
HANDLING OF BIOPSY SPECIMENS In
general, each biopsy specimen should be put in a sturdy
container with a secure lid to prevent leaking during transport.
Care should be taken when collecting specimens to avoid
contamination of the outside of the container. If the outside of
the container is visibly contaminated, it should be cleaned and
disinfected or placed in an impervious bag (49). USE
OF EXTRACTED TEETH IN DENTAL EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Extracted teeth used for the education of DHCWs should be
considered infective and classified as clinical specimens
because they contain blood. All persons who collect, transport,
or manipulate extracted teeth should handle them with the same
precautions as a specimen for biopsy (2). Universal precautions
should be adhered to whenever extracted teeth are handled;
because preclinical educational exercises simulate clinical
experiences, students enrolled in dental educational programs
should adhere to universal precautions in both preclinical and
clinical settings. In addition, all persons who handle extracted
teeth in dental educational settings should receive hepatitis B
vaccine (6-8).
Before extracted teeth are manipulated in dental educational
exercises, the teeth first should be cleaned of adherent patient
material by scrubbing with detergent and water or by using an
ultrasonic cleaner. Teeth should then be stored, immersed in a
fresh solution of sodium hypochlorite (household bleach diluted
1:10 with tap water) or any liquid chemical germicide suitable
for clinical specimen fixation (50).
Persons handling extracted teeth should wear gloves. Gloves
should be disposed of properly and hands washed after completion
of work activities. Additional personal protective equipment
(e.g., face shield or surgical mask and protective eyewear)
should be worn if mucous membrane contact with debris or spatter
is anticipated when the specimen is handled, cleaned, or
manipulated. Work surfaces and equipment should be cleaned and
decontaminated with an appropriate liquid chemical germicide
after completion of work activities (37,38,40,51). The
handling of extracted teeth used in dental educational settings
differs from giving patients their own extracted teeth. Several
states allow patients to keep such teeth, because these teeth
are not considered to be regulated (pathologic) waste (52) or
because the removed body part (tooth) becomes the property of
the patient and does not enter the waste system (53).
DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIALS
Blood, suctioned fluids, or other liquid waste may be poured
carefully into a drain connected to a sanitary sewer system.
Disposable needles, scalpels, or other sharp items should be
placed intact into puncture-resistant containers before
disposal. Solid waste contaminated with blood or other body
fluids should be placed in sealed, sturdy impervious bags to
prevent leakage of the contained items. All contained solid
waste should then be disposed of according to requirements
established by local, state, or federal environmental regulatory
agencies and published recommendations (9,49).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDED INFECTION-CONTROL PRACTICES FOR
DENTISTRY
Emphasis should be placed on consistent adherence to recommended
infection-control strategies, including the use of protective
barriers and appropriate methods of sterilizing or disinfecting
instruments and environmental surfaces. Each dental facility
should develop a written protocol for instrument reprocessing,
operatory cleanup, and management of injuries (3). Training of
all DHCWs in proper infection-control practices should begin in
professional and vocational schools and be updated with
continuing education.
ADDITIONAL NEEDS IN DENTISTRY Additional information is needed for accurate assessment of factors that may increase the risk for transmission of bloodborne pathogens and other infectious agents in a dental setting. Studies should address the nature, frequency, and circumstances of occupational exposures. Such information may lead to the development and evaluation of improved designs for dental instruments, equipment, and personal protective devices. In addition, more efficient reprocessing techniques should be considered in the design of future dental instruments and equipment. Efforts to protect both patients and DHCWs should include improved surveillance, risk assessment, evaluation of measures to prevent exposure, and studies of postexposure prophylaxis. Such efforts may lead to development of safer and more effective medical devices, work practices, and personal protective equipment that are acceptable to DHCWs, are practical and economical, and do not adversely affect patient care (54,55 ). References 1.
CDC. Recommended infection-control practices for dentistry.MWR
1986;35:237-42. 2.
CDC. Recommendations for prevention of HIV in health-care
settings. MMWR 1987;36:(No. 2S). 3.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Infection control
file: practical infection control in the dental office. Atlanta,
GA/Rockville, MD:CDC/FDA, 1989. (Available through the US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, or the National
Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA.)
4.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. 29 CFR Part 1910.1030, occupational exposure to
bloodborne pathogens; final rule. Federal Register
56(235):64004-182, 1991. 5.
CDC. Update: universal precautions for prevention of
transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus,
and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings. MMWR
1988;37:377-82,387-8.
6.
CDC. Guidelines for prevention of transmission of human
immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus to health-care and
public-safety workers. MMWR 1989;38(suppl. No. S-6):1-37. 7.
CDC. Protection against viral hepatitis: recommendations of the
Immunization Practices Advisory Committee (ACIP). MMWR
1990;39(No. RR-2).
8.
CDC. Hepatitis B virus: a comprehensive strategy for eliminating
transmission in the United States through universal childhood
vaccination. MMWR 1991;40(No. RR-13). 9. Garner JS, Favero MS. Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Atlanta: CDC, 1985; publication no. 99-1117. 10. Garner JS. Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Atlanta: CDC, 1985; publication no. 99-2381. 11. CDC. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of tuberculosis in health-care settings, with special focus on HIV-related issues. MMWR 1990;39(No. RR-17). 12. CDC. Recommendations for preventing transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B virus during exposure-prone invasive procedures. MMWR 1991;40(No. RR-8). 13. CDC. Update:investigations of patients who have been treated by HIV-infected health-care workers. MMWR 1992;41:344-6. 14. Chamberland ME, Bell DM. HIV transmission from health care worker to patient: what is the risk? Ann Intern Med 1992;116:871-3. 15. Siew C, Chang B, Gruninger SE, Verrusio AC, Neidle EA. Self-reported percutaneous injuries in dentists: implications for HBV, HIV transmission risk. J Am Dent Assoc 1992;123:37-44. 16. Ahtone J, Goodman RA. Hepatitis B and dental personnel: transmission to patients and prevention issues. J Am Dent Assoc 1983;106:219-22. 17. Hadler SC, Sorley DL, Acree KH, et al. An outbreak of hepatitis B in a dental practice. Ann Intern Med 1981;5:133-8. 18. CDC. Hepatitis B among dental patients -- Indiana. MMWR 1985;34:73-5. 19. Levin ML, Maddrey WC, Wands JR, et al. Hepatitis B transmission by dentists. JAMA 1974;228:1139-40. 20. Rimland D, Parkin WE, Miller GB, et al. Hepatitis B outbreak traced to an oral surgeon. N Engl J Med 1977;296:953-8. 21. Goodwin D, Fannin SL, McCracken BB. An oral surgeon-related hepatitis B outbreak. Calif Morbid 1976;14. 22. Reingold AL, Kane MA, Murphy EL, et al. Transmission of hepatitis B by an oral surgeon. J Infect Dis 1982;145:262-8. 23. Goodman RA, Ahtone JL, Finton RJ. Hepatitis B transmission from dental personnel to patients: unfinished business. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:119. 24. Shaw FE, Barrett CL, Hamm R, et al. Lethal outbreak of hepatitis B in a dental practice. JAMA 1986;255:3261-4. 25. CDC. Outbreak of hepatitis B associated with an oral surgeon, New Hampshire. MMWR 1987;36:132-3. 26. Ciesielski C, Marianos D, Chin-Yih OU, et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:798-805. 27. CDC. Investigations of patients who have been treated by HIV-infected health-care workers -- United States. MMWR 1993;42:329- 31, 337. 28. Gooch B, Marianos D, Ciesielski C, et al. Lack of evidence for patient-to-patient transmission of HIV in a dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:38-44. 29. Canter J, Mackey K, Good LS, et al. An outbreak of hepatitis B associated with jet injections in a weight reduction clinic. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:1923-7. 30. Kent GP, Brondum J, Keenlyside RA, LaFazia LM, Scott HD. A large outbreak of acupuncture-associated hepatitis B. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:591-8. 31. Polish LB, Shapiro CN, Bauer F, et al. Nosocomial transmission of hepatitis B virus associated with the use of a spring-loaded finger-stick device. N Engl J Med 1992;326:721-5. 32. Siew C, Gruninger SE, Mitchell EW, Burrell KH. Survey of hepatitis B exposure and vaccination in volunteer dentists. J Am Dent Assoc 1987;114:457-9. 33. CDC. Immunization recommendations for health-care-workers. Atlanta, GA: CDC, Division of Immunization, Center for Prevention Services, 1989. 34. Petersen NJ, Bond WW, Favero MS. Air sampling for hepatitis B surface antigen in a dental operatory. J Am Dent Assoc 1979;99:465- 7. 35. Bond WW, Petersen NJ, Favero MS, Ebert JW, Maynard JE. Transmission of type B viral hepatitis B via eye inoculation of a chimpanzee. J Clin Microbiol 1982;15:533-4. 36. CDC. Public Health Service statement on management of occupational exposure to human immunodeficiency virus, including considerations regarding zidovudine postexposure use. MMWR 1990;39(No. RR-1). 37. Miller CH, Palenik CJ. Sterilization, disinfection, and asepsis in dentistry. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991:676-95. 38. Favero MS, Bond WW. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991:617-41. 39. FDA, Office of Device Evaluation, Division of General and Restorative Devices, Infection Control Devices Branch. Guidance on the content and format of premarket notification {510 (k)} submissions for liquid chemical germicides. Rockville, MD: FDA, January 31, 1992:49. 40. Rutala WA. APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:99-117. 41. Proposed American National Standard/American Dental Association Specification No. 59 for portable steam sterilizers for use in dentistry. Chicago: ADA, April 1991. 42. CDC. Recommendations for preventing transmission of infection with human T-lymphotropic virus type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus in the workplace. MMWR 1985;34:682-6,691-5. 43. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment; Dental Practice; and Dental Therapeutics. American Dental Association. Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;1126:241-8. 44. Lewis DL, Boe RK. Cross infection risks associated with current procedures for using high-speed dental handpieces. J Clin Microbiol 1992;30:401-6. 45. Crawford JJ, Broderius RK. Control of cross infection risks in the dental operatory: prevention of water retraction by bur cooling spray systems. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116:685-7. 46. Lewis DL, Arens M, Appleton SS, et al. Cross-contamination potential with dental equipment. Lancet 1992;340:1252-4. 47. Bagga BSR, Murphy RA, Anderson AW, Punwani I. Contamination of dental unit cooling water with oral microorganisms and its prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;109:712-6. 48. Scheid RC, Kim CK, Bright JS, Whitely MS, Rosen S. Reduction of microbes in handpieces by flushing before use. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:658-60. 49. Garner JS, Simmons BP. CDC guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Atlanta, GA: CDC, 1983; HHS publication no. (CDC)83-8314. 50. Tate WH, White RR. Disinfection of human teeth for educational purposes. J Dent Educ 1991;55:583-5. 51. Favero MS, Bond WW. Sterilization, disinfection, and antisepsis in the hospital. In: Balows A, Hausler WJ, Herrmann KL, Isenberg HD, Shadomy HJ, eds. Manual of clinical microbiology, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1991:183-200. 52. The Michigan Medical Waste Regulatory Act of 1990, Act No. 368 of the Public Health Acts of 1978, Part 138, Medical Waste, Section 13807 -- Definitions. 53. Oregon Health Division. Infectious waste disposal; questions and answers pertaining to the Administrative Rules 333-18-040 through 333-18-070. Portland, OR: Oregon Health Division, 1989. 54. Bell DM. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission in health care settings: risk and risk reduction. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl. 3B):294-300. 55.
Bell DM, Shapiro CN, Gooch BF. Preventing HIV transmission to
patients during invasive procedures: the CDC perspective. J
Public Health Dent (in press).
SUGGESTED CITATION: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Recommended infection-control practices for dentistry, 1993.
MWMR 1993;42(No. RR-8):{inclusive page numbers}. Use
of trade names is for identification only and does not imply
endorsement by the Public Health Service or the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
CIO
Responsible for this publication: National Center for Prevention
Services, Hotline for patients of dentist in equipment scandal JOHN ROSS A HELPLINE has been set up for worried patients of an Inverness dentist, who is under investigation amid claims that he failed to sterilise equipment. NHS Highland officials are trying to contact about 3,500 patients - 954 of them under 16 - registered with John Halliday, who voluntarily stopped practising following a visit by an investigation team earlier this month. It is feared that, over the past two years, Mr Halliday did not always decontaminate equipment properly, raising a potential risk that viruses such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV could be transmitted by blood on instruments from one patient to another. Patients are being offered blood tests and counselling, but experts say the chances of contracting any of the conditions is extremely low - about a one in 125,000 chance for hepatitis B; one in 250,000 for hepatitis C and one in 7 million for HIV- with patients who had dental check-ups at even lower risk. A letter has been sent to his 1,511 NHS patients at the Inshes Dental Practice Surgery warning that the problem may have existed since August, 2002. NHS Highland is also trying to contact 2,000 private patients with the help of an organisation advising Mr Halliday. Dr Dennis Tracey, the public health consultant for NHS Highland, said: "The evidence we have suggests any risk to patients is extremely small. However, there is a remote possibility that some viruses - hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV - can be transmitted by blood on instruments from one patient to another. "We have written to all the dentist’s NHS patients with information and advice. We are working with the dentist’s representatives to make similar information available to his private patients. "In the meantime, private patients can contact the helpline if they require further information or advice." Dr Tracey said officials were first made aware of a possible health risk on 2 September and took "decisive action" in inspecting the premises and securing an agreement for Mr Halliday to stop working. However, during the investigations, it emerged that concerns about Mr Halliday date back over two years but had gone unreported. Roger Gibbons, the chief executive of NHS Highland, said: "When we followed up the concerns through investigation and interviews, it emerged that there had been concerns going back over those two years, but they had not been drawn to our attention during that period." The helpline - 08000 2828 16 - was set up at eight o’clock yesterday morning and took ten calls in the first two hours. Mr Halliday, a former army dentist, shares premises with another dentist, Chris Parkin, who has a separate practice which is not affected. Mr Parkin is a former dental officer with Highland Health Board and is a dental adviser to the Complaints Conciliation Service. He reported the issue to NHS Highland after being approached with concerns about a "major sterilisation shortfall" from one of Mr Halliday’s former nurses. Mr Parkin said: "It was becoming progressively more and more noticeable to me, but the real crisis came to light earlier this month when a former dental nurse came to me to say what was happening and I informed the authorities. "The dangers are obvious. We do have a lower than average hepatitis and HIV risk level in this area, but a breach of infection control is a breach of infection control." Mr Halliday was not at his home in the outskirts of Inverness yesterday and could not be contacted for comment. A spokesman for Dental Protection Limited, a mutual organisation which gives medical and legal advice to dentists, said it is advising Mr Halliday and investigating the allegations against him. "In the meantime, he is fully co-operating with NHS Highland and has given them access to both NHS and private patients," he said. The British Dental Association would not comment on individuals, but a spokesman said: "Infection control is a core element of dental practice and the BDA fully supports its members in achieving excellence in this area. We provide both written and one-to-one guidance on infection-control issues and work closely with the relevant government departments to ensure the profession has the most appropriate and up-to-date advice."
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, September 1999, p. 4255-4260,
Vol. 65, No. 9 Bacterial Spores Survive Treatment with Commercial Sterilants and DisinfectantsMolecular Biology Branch (HFZ-113), Division of Life Sciences, Office of Science and Technology, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland This study compared the activity of commercial liquid sterilants and disinfectants on Bacillus subtilis spores deposited on three types of devices made of noncorrodible, corrodible, or polymeric material. Products like Renalin, Exspor, Wavicide-01, Cidexplus, and cupric ascorbate were tested under conditions specified for liquid sterilization. These products, at the shorter times indicated for disinfection, and popular disinfectants, like Clorox, Cavicide, and Lysol were also studied. Data obtained with a sensitive and quantitative test suggest that commercial liquid sterilants and disinfectants are less effective on contaminated surfaces than generally acknowledged. Different reports agree that 5 to 10% (1.75 to 3.5 million) of the 35 million patients annually admitted to hospitals in the United States acquire an infection during hospitalization (5, 6, 22). More than 850,000 of these have been estimated to be implant- and device-related infections (2). Abundant data linking the transmission of various diseases (including AIDS, tuberculosis, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, as well as hospital epidemics of infections with Pseudomonas, Serratia, and Bacillus species) to medical devices suggest that the effectiveness of disinfection and sterilization practices has been overestimated (21). The capacity to kill bacterial spores determines how a commercial product will be marketed. Disinfectants are not expected to kill all bacterial spores and are used to decontaminate devices that ordinarily do not penetrate tissues or that touch only intact skin (3, 16, 25). Sterilants are expected to kill all microorganisms, including bacterial spores, and are used to treat devices that penetrate tissue or present a high risk if unsterile. Viable spores still attached to various materials could remain undetected by current sporicidal tests (1), resulting in overestimation of the sporicidal activity of sterilizing agents (4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15). The goal of this study was to compare the sporicidal activities of commercial liquid sterilants under manufacturer-specified conditions by using a sensitive method able to quantitatively account for the survival of all spores on contaminated carrier devices. Selection of carrier devices. The device to which spores are attached might alter the sporicidal activity of some germicidal agents (19). Therefore, the criteria used to select the carrier devices that we tested were based on the following practical considerations: (i) diverse material composition, (ii) geometry representative of medical devices, (iii) similar spore load capacities, (iv) size amenable to microtesting, and (v) cost. Miniature stainless steel machine screws (no. 0/80, pan head, 1.5 mm in diameter, and 12.5 mm long) were purchased at a local hardware store (Home Depot, Rockville, Md.) or from Thompson & Cooke (Bladensburg, Md.). Dental burs (FG 557) made of carbon steel were manufactured by Midwest Dental Products Corporation (Des Plaines, Ill.). Medical-grade silicone rubber tubing, 3.1-mm outer diameter and 1.5-mm inner diameter (Silastic; catalog no. 602-285), was manufactured by Dow Corning Corporation Medical Products (Midland, Mich.) and used in 12.5-mm-long sections. All devices were cleaned prior to use by washing with detergent, rinsing three times with distilled water, washing once in acetone, and rinsing again in distilled water before sterilization by autoclaving. The devices were immersed 5 mm deep in spore-loading suspensions. This procedure contaminated areas of 20, 40, and 78 mm2 on dental burs, screws, and tubing, respectively. Likely due to differences in geometry and materials, the test described below loaded similar numbers of spores onto the three devices in spite of the different immersed areas. The miniature stainless steel screws and small sections of medical-grade silicone rubber tubing were small enough to fit our microtest format and inexpensive (costing 6 and 3 cents each, respectively). Easy availability of tubing, burs, and screws made custom manufacturing of carriers unnecessary. Their low cost allowed these carriers to be used only once and then discarded, thus preventing spore carryover and the need to wash and sterilize the carriers between tests. Direct measurement of spores loaded onto carriers. Spores of Bacillus subtilis subsp. globigii (Spordex) were purchased from AMSCO American Sterilizer Co. (Erie, Pa.) with a reported D value for dry-heat killing at 160°C of 2.2 min and a D value for ethylene oxide killing (600 mg/liter at 54°C) of 3.5 min, respectively. The number of spores loaded onto carriers was determined by using radioactively labeled spores. A method that produces dry-heat-resistant spores in synthetic medium (8, 13, 23) was modified in our laboratory so that it would result in maximum incorporation of radiolabeled precursor as previously described (19). A rapidly growing culture (106 bacteria in 5 ml) was inoculated into 300 ml of synthetic sporulating medium in which methionine was replaced with radioactive L-[methyl-14C]methionine (0.33 Ci/ml; NEC165H; 50 mCi/mmol; New England Nuclear, Boston, Mass.). After 5 days of incubation at 32°C in a shaker operating at 140 rpm, cultures were chilled in ice and spores were pelleted by centrifugation for 30 min at 900 × g in a Beckman TJ-R refrigerated centrifuge. After five cycles of centrifugation and resuspension in new Luria-Bertani (LB) broth, the radioactivity in the supernatant was reduced to less than 2% of the radioactivity in the pellet containing the spores. Samples from each batch of spores radioactively labeled and concentrated in our laboratory or nonradiolabeled spores obtained commercially (Spordex) were microscopically examined and exposed to acid for confirmation of spore morphology and chemical resistance as previously described (18). No vegetative cells (rods) were observed during the counting of 1,000 radioactively labeled or nonlabeled spores. Spores were exposed for various time periods to either deionized, glass-distilled, autoclave-sterile water (controls) or hydrochloric acid (2.5 N). After exposure they were neutralized with ice-cold LB broth (Advanced Biotechnology IC, Columbia, Md.) and titrated onto broth-agar (LB broth [Miller-Difco, Detroit, Mich.], 1.5% Agar Select [Gibco-BRL, Paisley, Scotland]) plates 100 mm in diameter. Typical spore survival in hydrochloric acid for 5 and 10 min was 100 and 88%, respectively. Spores labeled with [14C]methionine were diluted in LB broth, and identical aliquots were either titrated for viability or counted for radioactivity. The specific activity of each spore preparation was obtained from the slope of the regression line of spore number (as determined by titration) versus incorporated 14C label (measured by scintillation counting). We transferred various devices to Eppendorf polypropylene tubes (1.5 ml) containing 50 µl of 14C-labeled spores at different concentrations. Each device was immersed in a separate spore-loading suspension for 30 min. The devices were then removed from the loading suspension with forceps and dried for 10 min under vacuum (Speed Vac; Savant, Farmingdale, N.Y.). Each 50-µl suspension was used once and then discharged.
The spore load on each device was estimated by immersing the loaded devices in scintillation liquid, measuring radioactivity, and multiplying this value by the specific activity of the preparation. One large batch with a specific activity of 1.7 × 103 ± 0.3 × 103 spores per cpm was used for final calibration of all devices. The number of spores attached to no. 0/80 stainless steel screws (ranging from 6.0 × 106 to 6.5 × 106) was comparable to that loaded into medical-grade silicone rubber tubing (3.8 × 106) immersed in a spore suspension with a similar spore concentration (1.7 × 109/ml). The increase in the number of spores loaded onto the stainless steel screws or silicone rubber tubing was approximately linear with increasing concentrations of the loading suspension in the range of 107 to 1010 spores/ml. This contaminating procedure loaded, on average, 3 spores per 1,000 spores/ml of the loading suspension.
Sterilants and disinfectants. Cidexplus (3.4% glutaraldehyde, pH 8.0; Johnson and Johnson Medical Inc., Arlington, Tex.) was activated as specified and used full strength at 21°C over a period of either 10 h, for sterilization, or 20 min, as indicated for high-level disinfection. Exspor (Alcide Corp., Redmond, Wash.), containing 1.52% sodium chlorite, was activated daily before experiments by mixing 1 part base concentrate, 4 parts water, and 1 part activator (yielding a pH between 2.3 and 2.7). The label prescribes the treatment of medical items with an Exspor-activated solution for 10 h to achieve sterilization and for 1 to 3 min for killing of Mycobacterium sp. and other bacteria, pathogenic fungi, and viruses on hard surfaces. Renalin (Renal Systems Division of Minntech Corp., Minneapolis, Minn.), a mixture of 20.0% hydrogen peroxide and 4.0% peroxyacetic acid, was used as recommended for sterilization at a dilution of 1:5 (final dilution; pH 1.8) in sterile, deionized, and glass-distilled water for an 11-h exposure. Wavicide-01 (2% glutaraldehyde; Wave Energy Systems, Wayne, N.J.) was used full strength for 10 h at 21°C as a sterilant or at a 1:4 dilution for 10 min (at room temperature [21°C]), as specified for killing of vegetative bacteria and viruses. Clorox (5.25% sodium hypochlorite, manufactured by The Clorox Company, Oakland, Calif.) was used at a 1:21 dilution, as recommended for disinfection. Lysol I.C. (7.24% o-benzyl-p-chlorophenol and 2.23% o-phenylphenol; National Laboratories, Montvale, N.J.) was used at the 1:128 dilution specified for use in hospitals, nursing homes, dental offices, and other institutional facilities as a germicidal, tuberculocidal, pseudomonacidal, staphylococcidal, fungicidal, and virucidal compound. Cavicide (15.30% isopropanol and 0.25% diisobutyl phenoxyethoxyethyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride; Micro Aseptic Products, Inc., Palatine, Ill.) was used full strength, as specified for disinfection of noncritical medical instruments. Cupric chloride (CuCl2 · 2H2O; Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemicals, Paris, Ky.), L-ascorbic acid, and (30% wt/vol) hydrogen peroxide (both from Aldrich Chemical, Milwaukee, Wis.) were used in a mixture (0.5% cupric ions [as cupric chloride]-0.1% ascorbic acid-0.003% hydrogen peroxide, pH 2.9). Sporicidal test on contaminated medical devices. Each carrier device was independently immersed in a tube with 50 µl of a suspension of radiolabeled spores (1.7 × 109 spores/ml). After drying, the devices were divided into two identical groups. In one group, the number of spores loaded into each device was measured radioactively. Devices in the second group were incubated at 20°C in 400 µl of disinfectant (three devices per disinfectant in separate tubes) for the time period specified on the respective product label or in an equal volume of sterile distilled water for 30 min, as a control for spore survival. After incubation, each device was removed from the test tube, the remaining disinfectant was diluted with 600 µl of ice-chilled LB broth, and the tube was centrifuged (5 min at 15,000 rpm in a model 5414 Microfuge [Brinkman Instruments Inc., Westbury, N.Y.]). The supernatant with diluted disinfectant was discarded; the spores in the pellet were resuspended by vortexing in fresh, ice-chilled LB broth (1 ml); and this sample containing loosely adherent spores was named fraction a. The device removed in the step described above was transferred to 400 µl of distilled water and sonicated for 5 min (Ultrasonic Cleaner; Cole Parmer, Chicago, Ill.). After sonication, the device was removed and 600 µl of ice-chilled LB broth was added to the 400 µl of water. This sample with spores removed by sonication was named fraction b. To recover viable spores still remaining on the carriers after fractions a and b had been obtained, the devices were incubated in 400 µl of fresh LB broth for 30 min at 32°C in a shaker operating at 140 rpm. The device was removed and counted in scintillation liquid, and lack of radioactivity confirmed the absence of detectable spores. Six hundred microliters of ice-chilled LB broth was added to the broth left after device removal, and this sample with spores dislodged after 30 min of shaking in medium was named fraction c. The incubation time of fraction c (30 min) was shorter than the period required for spores of B. subtilis to germinate and replicate, thus preventing overestimation of surviving organisms (data not shown). Fractions a, b, and c were serially diluted in LB broth, and the surviving spores in each fraction were titrated by serial dilution on LB broth agar plates. The overall recovery ratio of the method was calculated as the sum of spores titrated in fractions a, b, and c (ranging from 2.9 × 106 to 10.9 × 106 spores) after treatment with water divided by the average number of spores loaded (estimated radioactively). The spore recovery of the three-step method was 1.02 ± 0.22 (average fraction of the starting spore number ± the standard error (SE) in six independent experiments) for 0/80 stainless steel screws, a value nearly identical to the recovery previously obtained for silicone catheter tubing (1.02 ± 0.59). The recoveries of nonradiolabeled or radiolabeled spores in fractions a, b, and c were similar with all of the devices studied. Therefore, nonradioactive spores were used after the number of spores loaded onto each device was calibrated and it was established that the three-step method accounted for all of the challenge spores. By using the same devices and procedure, other laboratories could reproduce this test without further calibration or need for radioactive spores.
We included positive and negative controls for sporicidal activity in each experiment to allow monitoring of intertest performance. Water was chosen as the negative control because of its lack of sporicidal activity and common availability (no killing or 100% spore survival). Stability in dry chemical form and relatively low cost made cupric ascorbate a convenient positive control for sporicidal activity that produced a significant, consistent, and relatively time-independent (between 30 min and 10 h) reduction in spore survival (see Table 1).
The sporicidal test that we developed has several valuable characteristics. (i) It is quantitative. The number of spores attached to the devices before disinfection was directly measured with radiolabeled spores. Absence of spore attachment to the carrier at the end of the testing process is easily confirmed by determining lack of remaining radioactivity. A recovery value of nearly 1 in the negative controls demonstrates that all of the loaded spores are accountable for by the test. This is a clear advantage over methods that estimate carrier load indirectly by measuring the spores dislodged from the device to an unknown extent. Furthermore, determining the surviving fraction at each step of the test by counting colonies from surviving spores is more precise and informative than scoring growth or nongrowth as in other sporicidal tests. (ii) It is rapid. Our procedure was completed within 4 h, not counting overnight colony development. (iii) It is economical and environmentally friendly. The technique uses only 400 µl of disinfectant, resulting, for all practical purposes, in a nondestructive test that saves reagents and reduces the amount of toxic and infectious waste produced.
Effect of germicides on contaminated devices. Devices carrying 3.8 × 106 to 6.2 × 106 spores of B. subtilis were exposed once to various sterilizing agents or to water, and the spores titrated in fractions a, b, and c are shown in Fig. 1 (tubing) and 2 (screws). It was unclear how much the sporicidal activity of products labeled as liquid sterilants differed from that of common disinfectants. To answer this question, we also measured the relative sporicidal activities of products not intended for liquid sterilization but recommended for disinfection of medical devices used in patients with AIDS or decontamination of surfaces during epidemics or bacteriological warfare or widely used as household disinfectants (9, 10, 20, 24). The spore survival results shown in Fig. 1 and 2 and Table 1 confirm that general disinfectants (not specifically labeled for liquid sterilization, like Cavicide, Clorox, and Lysol) do not kill spores on contaminated devices and, thus, should never be employed in this capacity.
Figures 1 and 2 show that the proportion of viable spores recovered in each fraction varies for different products and treatment times. For all products, a one-step procedure (fraction a with loosely adherent spores) failed to detect all of the spores remaining viable after treatment (Fig. 1 and 2). Spore recovery in fraction a was often lower than after sonication and 30 min of shaking in culture medium, respectively (fractions b and c in Fig. 1 and 2). This could be a consequence of fixing or trapping of viable spores on the device surface by chemical cross-linking with the germicide. No viable spore could be detected in fraction a after treatment of tubing with the most active disinfectant (Renalin incubated for 11 h; Fig. 1). However, by using a procedure that completely recovers attached spores, a few spores were detected after sonication in fraction b and several hundred spores were easily detected after 30 min of shaking in medium (fraction c). Often, the number of surviving spores detected in fraction a differed by more than 1 log from the total number of viable spores (fractions a, b, and c in Fig. 1 and 2). Products whose effectiveness would be overestimated by more than 10-fold by a one-step recovery method included Cavicide, Cidexplus, Exspor, Lysol, and Renalin. Thus, these findings indicate that the sporicidal activity of disinfectants and sterilants will likely be overestimated by methods that dislodge spores in only one step (obtaining results equivalent to those obtained with fraction a) or by tests in which the recovery of loaded spores is unknown.
Comparative sporicidal activity. The total log of spore killing was obtained by subtracting the log of the total number of viable spores after exposure of devices to disinfectants (titrated in fractions a, b, and c) from the log of the number of spores surviving treatment with water. The values obtained for each device-disinfectant combination are displayed in Table 1. The survival of spores on contaminated dental burs was higher than on the other two devices. Disinfection of carbon steel dental burs produced corrosion stains on the devices and a fine precipitate at the bottoms of the test tubes. The higher spore survival correlated with obvious corrosion, and therefore, data on burs were not considered for comparison or ranking of products. The severe corrosion observed after treatment with commercial disinfectants made carbon steel dental burs inadequate as carriers for sporicidal testing. Deterioration after a single test and increased spore survival demonstrate that dental burs (and likely other devices containing carbon steel) must not be decontaminated with liquid disinfectants in spite of instructions to the contrary on the labels of some carbon steel devices. In contrast, the other two materials in this study were impervious to all disinfecting treatments. Stainless steel screws and silicone rubber catheter tubing did not show signs of deterioration after visual and microscopic examination (×160 magnification). These findings agree with the relative resistance of stainless steel and medical-grade silicone rubber to corrosion (17). Similar spore recovery and killing (within 1 log) by the same disinfectant on both devices (Table 1) suggest that testing on stainless steel screws and medical silicone rubber tubing should provide an adequate estimation of sporicidal activity on medical devices. Cidexplus is specified to be used for up to 28 days after activation. The label of Renalin indicates that the diluted solution must be used within a 7-day period as a sterilant for dialyzer reprocessing. These sterilants were tested at various times after activation or dilution. No significant change in the sporicidal activity of Cidexplus or Renalin was detected on contaminated silicone tubing, dental burs, and stainless steel screws during a 28- or 7-day test period, respectively (data not shown).
The incubation time specified in the labeling of products intended for sterilization is 10 or 11 h. Much shorter incubation times (a few minutes) are specified for use of the same products as sterilants. Changes in incubation time had a distinct effect on spore killing produced by different formulations specified as sterilants (Table 1). Extending treatment with Wavicide-01 from 10 min to 10 h caused a relatively large increase (more than 100 times) in sporicidal activity. In contrast, extending treatment with Exspor or cupric ascorbate from a few minutes to 10 h did not produce a substantial increase in sporicidal activity (less than a 10-fold difference between short and long exposures). Unexpectedly, spore killing on screws was slightly higher after 20 min than after 10 h of incubation with Cidexplus in four independent comparative experiments (Table 1). These findings suggest that the sporicidal activity of some products may be exhausted after a relatively short incubation period and highlight the importance of precise adherence to the times specified by the particular product's label.
Glutaraldehyde and peroxi compounds are common active ingredients used in liquid sterilization and high-level disinfection (3, 9, 10, 16, 21, 25). However, commercial products with these active ingredients had quite different sporicidal potencies after incubation for the similar periods (10 and 11 h of treatment) recommended for sterilization. The reduction of spore numbers ranged from 2,500- to 56,000-fold for Cidexplus and Renalin, respectively (Table 1).
The substantial spore survival detected in this study after treatment of devices with commercial sterilants (Table 1) conflicts with the concept of sterilization, defined as the destruction of all life, including bacterial spores. The data that we obtained with a sensitive and quantitative test suggest that commercial liquid sterilants and disinfectants are less active on contaminated surfaces than generally acknowledged. We appreciate the critical review of our manuscript by Larry E. Bockstahler (Division of Life Sciences, CDRH, FDA, Rockville, Md.), review of the statistical analysis by Harry F. Bushar (Division Of Biostatistics, CDRH, FDA, Gaithersburg, Md.), and assistance in measuring the contaminated areas of devices by Robert Bolster (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.).
Patients warned of dental surgery health risk
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Revised: November 30, 2008 .All information is posted without profit or payment for research and is for educational purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||