2种消毒剂用于口腔综合治疗台吸唾管道固定端消毒效果比较

doi:10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2022.07.006

口腔疾病防治 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (7): 499-504.DOI: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2022.07.006

2种消毒剂用于口腔综合治疗台吸唾管道固定端消毒效果比较

黄敏霞¹(), 李剑波¹, 贾搏¹, 张小燕¹, 黄秀霞¹, 施莎莎²

1.南方医科大学口腔医院,广东广州（510280）
2.广州金域医学检验集团有限公司,广东广州（510220）

收稿日期:2021-08-16 修回日期:2021-12-17 出版日期:2022-07-20 发布日期:2022-04-25
通讯作者: 黄敏霞
基金资助:
广东省自然科学基金面上项目(2019A1515010408);广东省医学科学技术研究基金项目(A2012113);南方医科大学口腔医院科研培育计划（临床研究）基金项目(2018001)

Comparison of two types of disinfectants on the disinfection of the fixed end of the table suction pipe in the oral comprehensive treatment table

HUANG Minxia¹(), LI Jianbo¹, JIA Bo¹, ZHANG Xiaoyan¹, HUANG Xiuxia¹, SHI Shasha²

1. Hospital of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510280, China
2. Guangzhou Jinyu Medical Laboratory Group Co., LTD., Guangzhou 510220, China

Received:2021-08-16 Revised:2021-12-17 Online:2022-07-20 Published:2022-04-25
Contact: HUANG Minxia
Supported by:
General Project of Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province(2019A1515010408);Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Foundation Project(A2012113);Fund Project of Scientific Research and Cultivation Plan (Clinical Research) of Hospital of Stomatology, Southern Medical University(2018001)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的比较500 mg/L含氯消毒剂和3%过氧化氢消毒液2种清洗消毒剂应用于口腔科患者诊疗使用后的口腔综合治疗台吸唾管道固定端螺纹塑料软管的消毒效果,为临床清洁消毒提供依据。方法选取牙髓科和颌面外科在诊疗患者使用后的各12台综合治疗台的吸唾管道固定端作为研究对象,随机分为2个实验组和1个对照组,实验1组使用500 mg/L含氯消毒剂、实验2组使用3%过氧化氢消毒液冲洗消毒,对照组用0.9%无菌生理盐水冲洗管道,连续4周,每周1次。冲洗消毒前后采集螺纹塑料软管接口处内壁样本行细菌培养及菌落计数,对比组内及组间消毒前后菌落计数,数据采用SPSS 24.0软件进行统计分析。结果清洗消毒前,三组细菌菌落数基线均衡,差异无统计学意义（χ² = 0.538,P = 0.764）,清洗消毒后的细菌菌落数均低于冲洗消毒前的细菌菌落数,500 mg/L含氯消毒液和3%过氧化氢消毒液消毒前后具有显著性差异（Z = -4.801,P<0.001;Z = -4.429,P<0.001）,组间对比500 mg/L含氯消毒液和3%过氧化氢消毒液消毒效果差异无统计学意义,但均优于对照组（χ² = 18.070,P<0.001）。结论口腔综合治疗台诊疗使用后用消毒剂消毒吸唾管道,能有效降低吸唾管道固定端螺纹塑料软管接口处细菌污染,消毒方法简单易行,取材方便,值得在口腔门诊推广应用。

关键词: 含氯消毒剂, 过氧化氢消毒剂, 口腔综合治疗台, 吸唾管道固定端, 牙科治疗椅水路系统, 细菌污染, 消毒效果

Abstract:

Objective To compare the disinfection effects of 500 mg/L chlorine-containing disinfectant and 3% hydrogen peroxide disinfectant applied to the threaded plastic hose at the fixed end of the saliva suction pipe of the oral comprehensive treatment table after diagnosis and treatment of patients in stomatology to provide a basis for clinical cleaning and disinfection. Methods The fixed ends of saliva suction pipes of 12 comprehensive treatment tables in the dental pulp department and maxillofacial surgery were selected as the research objects. The absorption was randomly divided into two groups and a control group: experimental group 1 with 500 mg/L chlorine disinfectants and experiment 2 group with 3% hydrogen peroxide disinfectant rinse disinfection and the control group with 0.9% sterile saline flushing pipe once a week for four weeks. Before and after washing and disinfection, samples from the inner wall of the threaded plastic hose interface were collected for bacterial culture and colony count, and colony counts within and between groups were compared before and after disinfection. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 24.0 software. Results The baseline number of bacterial colonies in the first three groups was balanced, with no statistically significant difference (χ² = 0.538, P = 0.764). The number of bacterial colonies after washing and disinfection was lower than that before washing and disinfection. The difference between 500 mg/L chlorine-containing disinfectant and 3% hydrogen peroxide disinfectant before and after disinfection was highly significant (Z = -4.801, P<0.001; Z = -4.429, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the disinfection effect of 500 mg/L chlorine-containing disinfectant and 3% hydrogen peroxide disinfectant, but they were both better than the control group (χ² = 18.070, P<0.001). Conclusion Disinfecting the saliva suction pipe with disinfectant between diagnosis and treatment can effectively reduce the bacterial contamination at the fixed end threaded plastic hose interface of the saliva suction pipe. The disinfection method is simple and convenient, and it is worth applying in the oral clinic.

Key words: chlorine-containing disinfectant, hydrogen peroxide disinfectant, dental chair unit, fixed end of the suction pipe, dental unit water lines, bacterial contamination, disinfection effect

中图分类号:

黄敏霞, 李剑波, 贾搏, 张小燕, 黄秀霞, 施莎莎. 2种消毒剂用于口腔综合治疗台吸唾管道固定端消毒效果比较[J]. 口腔疾病防治, 2022, 30(7): 499-504.

HUANG Minxia, LI Jianbo, JIA Bo, ZHANG Xiaoyan, HUANG Xiuxia, SHI Shasha. Comparison of two types of disinfectants on the disinfection of the fixed end of the table suction pipe in the oral comprehensive treatment table[J]. Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases, 2022, 30(7): 499-504.

图/表 2

参考文献 19

[1]	Matys J, Grzech-Leśniak K. Dental aerosol as a hazard risk for dental workers[J]. Materials (Basel), 2020, 13(22): 5109. doi: 10. 3390/ma13225109. DOI URL
[2]	Watanabe A, Tamaki N, Yokota K, et al. Monitoring of bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines using adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence[J]. J Hosp Infect, 2016, 94(4): 393-396. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.08.001. DOI PMID
[3]	Fleres G, Couto N, Lokate M, et al. Detection of legionella anisa inwater from hospital dental chair units and molecular characterization by whole-genome sequencing[J]. Microorganisms, 2018, 6(3): 71. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms6030071. DOI URL
[4]	周利文, 包年香, 骆伟燕, 等. 不同消毒剂对口腔门诊物体表面消毒效果的比较[J]. 口腔疾病防治, 2017, 25(4): 258-260. doi: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2017.04.012. DOI
	Zhou LW, Bao NX, Luo WY, et al. Comparison of surface disinfection method on frequently touched objects in dental clinic[J]. J Prev Treat Stomatol Dis, 2017, 25(4): 258-260. doi: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2017.04.012. DOI
[5]	Lizon J, Florentin A, Martrette JM, et al. Microbial control of dental unit water: feedback on different disinfection methods experience[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2016, 44(2): 247-249. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.08.029. DOI URL
[6]	Peron D, Bergamo A, Prates R, et al. Photodynamic antimicro-bial chemotherapy has an overt killing effect on periodontal pathogens?A systematic review of experimental studies[J]. Lasers Med Sci, 2019, 34(8): 1527-1534. doi: 10.1007/s10103-019-02806-4. DOI URL
[7]	Dahlen G. Biofilms in dental unit water lines[J]. Monogr Oral Sci, 2021, 29: 12-18. doi: 10.1159/000510195. DOI
[8]	Hamilton KA, Kuppravalli A, Heida A, et al. Legionnaires' disease in dental offices: quantifying aerosol risks to dental workers and patients[J]. J Occup Environ Hyg, 2021, 18(8): 378-393. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2021.1939878. DOI URL
[9]	Sethi KS, Mamajiwala A, Mahale S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the chlorhexidine and cinnamon extract as ultrasonic coolant for reduction of bacterial load in dental aerosols[J]. J Indian Soc Periodontol, 2019, 23(3): 226-233. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_517_18. DOI URL
[10]	Cheng L, Naibijiang N, Hasenbai A, et al. Bacteriostatic effects of nanometer silver disinfectant on the biofilms in dental unit water lines[J]. J Dent Sci, 2021, 16(1): 327-332. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020. 03.015. DOI URL
[11]	罗直智, 董玉颖, 王艳, 等. 过氧化氢与含氯消毒剂对口腔综合治疗台水消毒效果与污染状况调查[J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2015, 32(6): 545-546, 549.
	Luo ZZ, Dong YY, Wang Y, et al. Investigation on disinfection effect and pollution of hydrogen peroxide and chlorine containing disinfectant on water in oral comprehensive treatment table[J]. Chin J Disinfect, 2015, 32(6): 545-546, 549.
[12]	林丽婷, 章小缓, 杨菁, 等. 牙科综合治疗台吸唾管道两种清洁消毒方法对空气质量的影响[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2014, 24(2): 515-517. doi: 10.11816/cn.ni.2014-124676. DOI
	Lin LT, Zhang XH, Yang Q, et al. Effects of two cleaning and disinfection methods on air quality of saliva suction pipe in dental comprehensive treatment table[J]. Chin J Nosocomiol, 2014, 24(2): 515-517. doi: 10.11816/cn.ni.2014-124676. DOI
[13]	杨静, 王芳云. 吸唾管道两种清洁消毒方法对口腔诊室空气质量的影响[J]. 中华全科医学, 2018, 16(7): 1201-1203. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.000330. DOI
	Yang J, Wang FY. Effects of two cleaning and disinfection methods of saliva suction pipe on air quality in oral clinic[J]. Chin J Gener Pract, 2018, 16(7): 1201-1203. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn. 1674-4152.000330. DOI
[14]	许莹, 吴红梅, 叶莺, 等. 不同消毒剂对口腔综合治疗台水路消毒效果研究[J]. 中国感染控制杂志, 2015, 14(1): 23-26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9638.2015.01.005. DOI
	Xu Y, Wu HM, Ye Y, et al. Study on disinfection effect of different disinfectants on waterway of oral comprehensive treatment table[J]. Chin J Infect Contl, 2015, 14(1): 23-26. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9638.2015.01.005. DOI
[15]	史宗道. 口腔临床药物学[M]. 3版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2008: 191-193.
	Shi ZD. Oral clinical pharmacology[M]. 3rd. Beijing: People's Health Publishing House, 2008: 191-193.
[16]	Deverick J, Anderson, Luke FC, et al. Enhanced terminal roomdisinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-re-sistant organisms and clostridium difficile(the benefits of enhancedterminal room disinfection study):a cluster-randomised,multicen-tre,crossover study[J]. Lancet, 2017, 389(10071):805-814. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31588-4. DOI PMID
[17]	王桂芹, 章洁, 楼晶, 等. 口腔牙椅水路细菌污染现状调查及水冲洗法降低细菌污染程度的应用研究[J]. 中华全科医学, 2021, 19(7): 1228-1231. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002027. DOI
	Wang GQ, Zhang J, Lou J, et al. Investigation on the current situation of bacterial pollution in the waterways of oral dental chairs and the application of water flushing method to reduce the degree of bacterial pollution[J]. Chin J Gener Pract, 2021, 19(7): 1228-1231. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002027. DOI
[18]	费春楠. 口腔综合治疗台水路的消毒和感染防控策略[J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2019, 36(12): 945-949. doi: CNKI:SUN:ZGXD.0.2019-12-024. DOI
	Zhang CN. Disinfection and infection prevention and control strategy of waterway of oral comprehensive treatment station[J]. Chin J Disinfect, 2019, 36(12): 945-949. doi: CNKI:SUN:ZGXD.0.2019-12-024. DOI
[19]	Hasegawa Taisuke, Takenaka S, Rika W, et al. A horizon-tal sequential cutting method to estimate the effectiveness of dentindisinfection by using confocal laser scanning microscopy[J]. J Endod, 2019, 45(9): 1142-1147. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.06.004. DOI PMID

Groups	Before disinfection	After disinfection	Z	P
Control	10 700 (9 660, 13 510)	9 720 (7 540, 12 700)	-2.843	0.004
Experimental group Ⅰ	10 640 (9 560, 11 320)	7 360 (5 240, 8 520)	-4.801	<0.001
Experimental group Ⅱ	10 520 (9 760, 13 800)	8 240 (4 680, 9 280)	-4.429	<0.001

Groups	Before disinfection	After disinfection	Z	P
Control	10 700 (9 660, 13 510)	9 720 (7 540, 12 700)	-2.843	0.004
Experimental group Ⅰ	10 640 (9 560, 11 320)	7 360 (5 240, 8 520)	-4.801	<0.001
Experimental group Ⅱ	10 520 (9 760, 13 800)	8 240 (4 680, 9 280)	-4.429	<0.001

Groups	Difference before and after disinfection	χ²	P	P₁	P₂	P₃
Control	1 140 (130, 1 860)	18.070	0.000	0.001	0.001	1.000
Experimental group Ⅰ	3 560 (1 680, 5 320)
Experimental group Ⅱ	3 040 (1 200, 6 280)

Groups	Difference before and after disinfection	χ²	P	P₁	P₂	P₃
Control	1 140 (130, 1 860)	18.070	0.000	0.001	0.001	1.000
Experimental group Ⅰ	3 560 (1 680, 5 320)
Experimental group Ⅱ	3 040 (1 200, 6 280)

2种消毒剂用于口腔综合治疗台吸唾管道固定端消毒效果比较

Comparison of two types of disinfectants on the disinfection of the fixed end of the table suction pipe in the oral comprehensive treatment table

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 2

参考文献 19

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics