Search

RESUMEN: El adecuado conocimiento de definiciones, normas, procedimientos, uso de antisépticos y desinfectantes, permite contar con las herramientas para evitar la diseminación de agentes infecciosos y proporcionar el conocimiento para el uso racional de estos. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar de manera estructurada y ordenada la información disponible respecto de la desinfección de alicates de ortodoncia y proporcionar una guía para el control óptimo de infecciones. Se realizó una búsqueda mediante PubMed, MEDLINE y Google Scholar, sin importar idioma, desde el año 2000 a abril 2021. Se establecieron los desinfectantes más recomendados para la desinfección de alicates de ortodoncia y las consideraciones en su uso. Además, se determinaron los riesgos de corrosión y recomendaciones para evitarlas. Es importante contar con información actualizada que se pueda utilizar para desarrollar un programa óptimo de asepsia, sobre todo en el contexto actual de pandemía.

Introduction: Orthodontic pliers are essential armamentarium in every orthodontic office and should be used once for one patient, then autoclaved before next use. Clinical orthodontics with higher volume of patients, requires a quick chair side disinfection method for pliers, also in rural centres with minimum infrastructure it is a challenge to maintain sterilisation protocols. Various disinfecting agents include alcohols , quaternary ammonium salts, formaldehyde, chloramine, sodium hypochlorite, spirit, glutaraldehyde etc. are available. Out of these we compared the commonly available disinfectants including ethyl alcohol, 5% glutaraldehyde, and 6% sodium hypochlorite to assess their disinfection efficacy after clinical use. Materials and method: 20 orthodontic pliers were inoculated with Coagulase negative streptococci. The pliers were divided in 4 groups with 5 pliers in each group. Each group was subjected to different disinfectant solution with one group aiding as control. The disinfectants used were: spirit (group 1), 5% glutaraldehyde (group 2), 2% sodium hypochlorite (group 3) and distilled water (control group). Results: spirit and 5% glutaraldehyde have shown to be potent disinfectants. Conclusions: Based on these results, we concluded that among the tested methods, disinfection of orthodontic pliers with spirit and 5% glutaraldehyde are the efficient methods for chair-side disinfection.

Introduction The sterilization and disinfection procedures should be adapted to the chemical profile of the metal alloys present in the instruments. Objective This study aimed to perform a micrographic assessment on the surface characteristics of the widia of orthodontic pliers with two alloy compositions subjected to the action of 0.2% peracetic acid and intensive use. Material and method Twenty distal cutting pliers were divided into two groups (n=10) according to widia composition (%wt): W1- 85% to 87% of tungsten carbide (TC) and other components in the proportion of 13% to 15% and W2 – 87.5% to 88.5% of tungsten carbide and 11.5% to 12.5% for other components. All the pliers were assessed in a stereoscopic magnifying glass (32x) after three treatments: before use (T0); after cutting 100 segments of rectangular stainless-steel wires – intensive use (T1); and after 100 sterilization cycles in 0.2% peracetic acid and intensive use (T2). The cutting sites of all pliers were standardized. Widia regions were defined by line “A” representing T1 and line “B” representing T2. A frequency distribution table and Fisher’s exact test (α=0.05) was performed. We assessed two widia from each composition and treatment in SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS/SEM). Result The results showed that W1 pliers presented significantly fewer defects after the sterilization cycles with peracetic acid and intensive use than W2 pliers (p=0.0198). There were no differences between both pliers after intensive use (p=1.000). Conclusion The SEM images and EDS analyses showed changes in widia surfaces after the different treatments. Widia composition affected the resistance of the orthodontic pliers after sterilization cycles with 0.2% peracetic acid and intensive use. Resumo Introdução Os procedimentos de esterilização e desinfecção devem ser adaptados ao perfil químico das ligas metálicas presentes nos instrumentos. Objetivo O objetivo do estudo foi realizar uma avaliação micrográfica das características da superfície da widia de alicates ortodônticos com duas composições de ligas submetidas à ação de ácido peracético a 0,2% e uso intensivo. Material e método Vinte alicates de corte distal foram divididos em dois grupos (n=10), de acordo com a composição widia (% em peso): W1- 85% a 87% de carboneto de tungstênio e outros componentes na proporção de 13% a 15% e W2 - 87,5% a 88,5% de carboneto de tungstênio e 11,5% a 12,5% para outros componentes. Os alicates foram avaliados em uma lupa estereoscópica (32x) após três tratamentos: antes do uso (T0); após corte de 100 segmentos de fios retangulares de aço inoxidável- uso intensivo (T1); após 100 ciclos de esterilização em ácido peracético a 0,2% e uso intensivo (T2). Os locais de corte dos alicates foram definidos pela linha “A” representando T1 e pela linha “B” representando T2. Foi realizada uma tabela de distribuição de frequências e o teste exato de Fisher (α=0,05). As widias foram avaliadas em MEV e Espectroscopia de Energia Dispersiva. Resultado Os alicates W1 apresentaram defeitos significativamente menores após os ciclos de esterilização com ácido peracético e uso intensivo do que os alicates W2 (p=0,0198). Não houve diferenças entre os dois alicates após uso intensivo (p=1.000). Conclusão As imagens de MEV/EDS mostraram alterações nas superfícies widia após os diferentes tratamentos. A composição widia afetou a resistência do alicate ortodôntico após ciclos de esterilização com ácido peracético a 0,2% e uso intensivo.

Introduction: The most currently recommended method for sterilization of orthodontic pliers is the autoclave, while peracetic acid has also been shown to be effective in the chemical sterilization process. Objective: This study sought to compare the corrosive effects of peracetic acid and autoclave sterilization process of orthodontic pliers. Methods: Four active tungsten carbide (WC) stainless steel tie-cutting pliers from the manufacturers Quinelato (Rio Claro, SP, Brazil) and ICE (Cajamar, SP, Brazil) were selected. The active ends of the pliers were sectioned, and six active tips were obtained and distributed into the following groups: 1) control group (no sterilization); 2) AC group (two active pliers tips submitted to 100 autoclave sterilization cycles); and 3) AP group (two active pliers tips submitted to 100 cycles of sterilization by immersion in 2% peracetic acid solution for 30 minutes). Results: Chemical analysis using X-ray dispersive energy spectroscopy showed that after autoclave sterilization, only the ICE pliers presented oxidation corrosion (Δ[O] = +24.5%; Δ[Fe] = +5.8%; Δ[WC] = -1.9%). In comparison, following peracetic acid sterilization, both manufacturers ICE (Δ[O] = +1.8%; Δ[Fe] = +18.0%; Δ[WC] = -1.1%) and Quinelato (Δ[O] = +5.3%; Δ[Fe] = -10.4%; Δ[WC] = -15.2%) showed corrosion. The morphological analysis revealed that peracetic acid caused a pitting and localized corrosion in both brands, while the autoclave caused uniform surface corrosion on the ICE pliers. Conclusion: Autoclave application was the sterilization method that generated less corrosive damage to the orthodontic cutting pliers, when compared to the immersion in 2% peracetic acid. RESUMO Introdução: O método mais recomendado para a esterilização dos alicates ortodônticos é a autoclave; porém, o ácido peracético mostrou-se eficaz no processo de esterilização química. Objetivo: O objetivo do presente estudo foi avaliar o efeito corrosivo do ácido peracético e da autoclave no processo de esterilização de alicates ortodônticos. Métodos: Foram selecionados quatro alicates de corte de amarrilho de aço inoxidável, com ponta ativa de carboneto de tungstênio (WC), das marcas Quinelato (Rio Claro/SP, Brasil) e ICE (Cajamar/SP, Brasil), que foram distribuídos em três grupos: 1) Controle (C), o qual não foi submetido à esterilização; 2) Grupo AC, constituído por duas pontas ativas de alicates submetidas a 100 ciclos de esterilização em autoclave; e 3) Grupo AP, formado por duas pontas ativas de alicates submetidas a 100 ciclos de esterilização por imersão em solução de ácido peracético a 2% durante 30 minutos. Resultados: Por meio da análise química (EDS, energia dispersiva de raios X), constatou-se que, após esterilização em autoclave, somente o alicate ICE apresentou corrosão por oxidação (Δ[O] = +24,5%; Δ[Fe] = +5,8% e Δ[WC] = -1,9%), enquanto na esterilização em ácido peracético, ambas as marcas, ICE (Δ[O] = +1,8%; Δ[Fe] = +18,0% e Δ[WC] = -1,1%) e Quinelato (Δ[O] = +5,3%; Δ[Fe] = -10,4% e Δ[WC] = -15,2%), apresentaram corrosão. A análise morfológica demonstrou que o ácido peracético causou uma corrosão localizada em pite em ambas as marcas, enquanto a autoclave ocasionou uma corrosão superficial uniforme no alicate ICE. Conclusão: A autoclave foi o método de esterilização que gerou menor dano corrosivo aos alicates ortodônticos, em comparação à imersão em ácido peracético a 2%.

Aim: : The aim of this study was to investigate the corrosion resistance of orthodontic pliers from several manufacturers following different sterilization procedures, namely heat sterilization and the use of a disinfectant agent (Sekusept Extra N®) in an ultrasonic bath. Material and Methods: : Employed in this study were ten distal-end cutters and ten Weingart pliers manufactured by Aesculap®, ETM and Hu-Friedy®, examined under electron microscopy for evidence of corrosion following 500 sterilization cycles. The corrosion data were recorded photographically and graphically. Metallographic microsections were prepared from each pair of pliers and were then analyzed by means of EDX measurements to assess the chemical alloy composition. Results: : The light and electron microscopic evaluation showed that both heat sterilization and high level disinfection caused corrosive changes on the pliers. However, the type of corrosion differed between the two sterilization methods. The main type of corrosion with Sekusept Extra N® was pitting, while with heat sterilization it was surface corrosion. Heat sterilization was the type of corrosion that caused the most corrosive changes, regardless of which type of corrosion was considered. However, these results must be viewed critically, because pitting corrosion is obviously a more severe problem than surface corrosion. In comparing the pliers of various manufacturers, differences were noted. However, it was difficult to rank them when the correct maintenance regime was adhered to. The soldered joint gap was revealed to be a specific weak point, and that area proved to be inadequate due to qualities related to their production, particularly in the Hu-Friedy® pliers. Conclusions: : This study showed that heat sterilization leads to less corrosion than cold disinfection. Corroded pliers can be restored to a useable condition by re-polishing, though it is important that the instructions for their care be strictly adhered to

Objective:: Pathogenic microbes may be transmitted directly from the orthodontist to the patient or from the patient to the doctor, and indirectly from patient to patient. The latter may occur via contaminated instruments or surfaces, and is referred to as cross-contamination. The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of bacterial contamination of orthodontic pliers and the efficacy of the disinfection techniques applied after clinical use. We also sought to examine under standardized conditions the virucidal, bactericidal and fungicidal effects of disinfection techniques used in practice. Materials and Methods:: The efficacy of various disinfection methods was determined after clinical use in-vivo on 10 test subjects and in-vitro with deliberate contamination. The following disinfection methods were tested: 1. Iso-Septol spray 2. Incidur® spray 3. Trough disinfection in combination with 5% Sekusept® Plus solution 4. Ultrasound bath in combination with 5% Sekusept® Plus solution 5. Thermal disinfection For in-vitro contamination we used the test organisms Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Candida albicans, Coxsackie virus B4, HSV 1, and Adenovirus type 5. The tests were carried out six to eight times for each organism. The Weingart pliers and distalend cutters were tested. The criteria for effective disinfection were a reduction in infectiosity of five log steps (for bacteria and fungi) or four log steps (viruses). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Wilcoxon and Whitney U-test. Results:: The presence of contamination following clinical use was not adequately eliminated with all disinfection methods. The spray methods exhibited shortcomings in disinfection. For the type of contamination defined, trough disinfection with 5% Sekusept® Plus and the Incidur® and Iso-Septol spray disinfection methods provided insufficient disinfection. Conversely, the ultrasound bath with 5% Sekusept® Plus solution and steam disinfection met the criteria for effective disinfection for all microbes. No statistically significant difference was found between the oiled and unoiled states. In some cases, there were slightly higher rates of contamination with the Weingart pliers as with the distalend cutters. However, these were not statistically significant. Conclusions:: It should be possible to disinfect lipophilic viruses and the usual bacterial infections adequately with all methods, provided that the use of sprays and trough disinfection is preceded by cleaning with brush and water, followed by drying. With hydrophilic viruses, however, the spray and trough disinfection methods are limited in their efficacy and cannot be considered adequate. Exclusively chemical methods are therefore less effective than thermal or physical-chemical methods. Thermal disinfection and the ultrasound bath in combination with 5% Sekusept® Plus are clearly superior to spray disinfection and trough disinfection alone. The ultrasound bath and thermal disinfection can therefore be recommended for the disinfection of orthodontic pliers. We recommend that the pliers be cleaned beforehand due to their uneven surfaces

Objective: This cross-sectional observational study was designed to assess the biosafety conducts adopted by orthodontists, and possible differences regarding training time. Methods: Both the application of methods for sterilization/disinfection of instruments and materials, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were collected through questionnaires via e-mail. Results: The questionnaires were answered by 90 orthodontists with a mean age of 37.19 ± 9.08 years and mean training time of 13.52 ± 6.84 years. Regarding orthodontic pliers, 63.23% use an autoclave, except 1 who does not perform any procedure. All participants use autoclave to sterilize instruments, and 95.6% of respondents perform cleaning with chemicals prior to sterilization. Most of them (65.56%) use an autoclave to sterilize orthodontic bands, with some still associating disinfection methods, while few (18.89%) do nothing at all. There was a high incidence of the answer “nothing” for the methods used for elastic, accessories, bandages, metal springs, and arches. All respondents use mask and gloves in attendance, 78.92% use aprons, 58.92% use protective goggles, and 50.01% use cap. Training time significantly influenced (p = 0.003) only the use of glutaraldehyde for sterilization/disinfection of pliers. Conclusions: The sterilization and cleaning of pliers, instruments, and bands, besides the use of PPE, received more uniform and positive responses, while other items suggest disagreements and possible failures. Only orthodontists trained for more than 13 years choose using glutaraldehyde for pliers sterilization/disinfection, the only adopted method with a significant difference in relation to training time. RESUMO Objetivo: o presente estudo observacional transversal foi delineado para avaliar as condutas de biossegurança adotadas pelos ortodontistas, e as possíveis diferenças em função do tempo de formação. Métodos: tanto as técnicas de esterilização e desinfecção de instrumentais e materiais quanto o uso de equipamentos de proteção individual da equipe foram coletados por meio de questionários via e-mail. Resultados: os questionários foram respondidos por 90 ortodontistas, com idade média de 37,19 ± 9,08 anos e tempo médio de formação de 13,52 ± 6,84 anos. Quanto aos alicates ortodônticos, 63,23% usam autoclave, exceto aqueles que não realizam nenhum procedimento. Houve total abrangência no uso da esterilização do instrumental por autoclave, sendo que 95,6% realizam a limpeza com substâncias químicas previamente à esterilização. A maioria (65,56%) utiliza autoclave para a esterilização de anéis ortodônticos e alguns associam métodos de desinfecção, mas 18,89% nada fazem. Houve alta incidência da resposta “nada” para os métodos utilizados em elásticos, acessórios, ligaduras, molas e arcos. Todos os questionados utilizam máscara e luva no atendimento ortodôntico, 78,92% incluem o uso do avental, 58,92% usam óculos de proteção e 50,01% vestem o gorro (50,01%). O tempo de formação influenciou significativamente (p= 0,003) apenas no uso do glutaraldeído para esterilização e/ou desinfecção dos alicates. Conclusões: a esterilização e limpeza de alicates, instrumental de exame, aplicador de elásticos e anéis ortodônticos, além do uso de equipamentos de proteção individual, receberam respostas mais uniformes e positivas, enquanto os outros itens sugerem falhas. Apenas os ortodontistas formados há mais de treze anos optaram pelo uso do glutaraldeído para esterilização/desinfecção dos alicates ortodônticos, sendo a única conduta que mostrou diferença significativa em relação ao tempo de formação.