Search

Objective To compare the disinfection effect of 3% (v/v) hydrogen peroxide and 500 mg/L chlorine-containing disinfectants in the independent waterway of a periodontal ultrasonic scaler to provide a reference for clinical waterway disinfection management in stomatology departments. Methods The 18 ultrasonic scalers were randomly divided into 3 groups of 6 units: the control group, experimental group 1 (3% hydrogen peroxide disinfectant group), and experimental group 2 (500 mg/L chlorine-containing disinfectant group). The replaceable parts of the independent waterway pipes of the 3 groups of ultrasonic scalers were replaced, and the water supply was supplied with sterile distilled water (DW). In the control group, special treatment was not applied to the nonreplaceable pipe part. In experimental group 1, the 3% hydrogen peroxide was used to disinfect nonreplaceable pipelines. In experimental group 2, the nonreplaceable part was disinfected with the 500 mg/L chlorine-containing disinfectant. The water sample was taken from the outlet of the scaler working part in the three groups for monitoring before disinfection, immediately after disinfection and 10 consecutive days after disinfection. Bacteria in the water samples were cultured for the colony counts. Then, the bacterial culture data were compared between groups. The qualified criterion of the water sample was that the number of bacterial colonies was less than or equal to 100 CFU/mL. After disinfection, a bacterial species mass spectrometry identification analysis was carried out when the number of bacterial colonies in each group exceeded the standard for the first time. Biofilms from the inner wall of the tube in the three groups were observed under an electron microscope on the 10th day after disinfection. Results There were no significant differences between the three groups before disinfection (F = 2.549, P = 0.111). The number of bacterial colonies in the spout of 6 scalers in the control group all exceeded the standard, and three kinds of bacteria were cultured: Sphingomonas melonis, Herbaspirillum huttiense, and Ralstonia pickettii. Compared with those in the control group, the number of bacterial colonies in experimental group 1 decreased significantly for 1-2 days after disinfection (P

Digital intraoral scanning is a hot topic in the field of oral digital technology. In recent years, digital intraoral scanning has gradually become the mainstream technology in orthodontics, prosthodontics, and implant dentistry. The precision of digital intraoral scanning and the accuracy and stitching of data collection are the keys to the success of the impression. However, the operators are less familiar with the intraoral scanning characteristics, imaging processing, operator scanning method, oral tissue specificity of the scanned object, and restoration design. Thus far, no unified standard and consensus on digital intraoral scanning technology has been achieved at home or abroad. To deal with the problems encountered in oral scanning and improve the quality of digital scanning, we collected common expert opinions and sought to expound the causes of scanning errors and countermeasures by summarizing the existing evidence. We also describe the scanning strategies under different oral impression requirements. The expert consensus is that due to various factors affecting the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning and the reproducibility of scanned images, adopting the correct scanning trajectory can shorten clinical operation time and improve scanning accuracy. The scanning trajectories mainly include the E-shaped, segmented, and S-shaped methods. When performing fixed denture restoration, it is recommended to first scan the abutment and adjacent teeth. When performing fixed denture restoration, it is recommended to scan the abutment and adjacent teeth first. Then the cavity in the abutment area is excavated. Lastly, the cavity gap was scanned after completing the abutment preparation. This method not only meets clinical needs but also achieves the most reliable accuracy. When performing full denture restoration in edentulous jaws, setting markers on the mucosal tissue at the bottom of the alveolar ridge, simultaneously capturing images of the vestibular area, using different types of scanning paths such as Z-shaped, S-shaped, buccal-palatal and palatal-buccal pathways, segmented scanning of dental arches, and other strategies can reduce scanning errors and improve image stitching and overlap. For implant restoration, when a single crown restoration is supported by implants and a small span upper structure restoration, it is recommended to first pre-scan the required dental arch. Then the cavity in the abutment area is excavated. Lastly, scanning the cavity gap after installing the implant scanning rod. When repairing a bone level implant crown, an improved indirect scanning method can be used. The scanning process includes three steps: First, the temporary restoration, adjacent teeth, and gingival tissue in the mouth are scanned; second, the entire dental arch is scanned after installing a standard scanning rod on the implant; and third, the temporary restoration outside the mouth is scanned to obtain the three-dimensional shape of the gingival contour of the implant neck, thereby increasing the stability of soft tissue scanning around the implant and improving scanning restoration. For dental implant fixed bridge repair with missing teeth, the mobility of the mucosa increases the difficulty of scanning, making it difficult for scanners to distinguish scanning rods of the same shape and size, which can easily cause image stacking errors. Higher accuracy of digital implant impressions can be achieved by changing the geometric shape of the scanning rods to change the optical curvature radius. The consensus confirms that as the range of scanned dental arches and the number of data concatenations increases, the scanning accuracy decreases accordingly, especially when performing full mouth implant restoration impressions. The difficulty of image stitching processing can easily be increased by the presence of unstable and uneven mucosal morphology inside the mouth and the lack of relatively obvious and fixed reference objects, which results in insufficient accuracy. When designing restorations of this type, it is advisable to carefully choose digital intraoral scanning methods to obtain model data. It is not recommended to use digital impressions when there are more than five missing teeth.

The original article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01974-y.Correction: Microbiome 12, 259 (2024)https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-01974-yAfter the original article [[1]] was published, the authors reported that the production team had failed to upload the approved Video Abstract during the final publication process.The original article has been updated to include the Video Abstract.By Zhibin He; Yarong Hou; Ying Li; Qicheng Bei; Xin Li; Yong‑Guan Zhu; Werner Liesack; Matthias C. Rillig and Jingjing PengReported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author [Extracted from the article]