Search

Dentistry entered a new era in the 1980s when the development of the AIDS crisis targeted dental facilities as one source of potential cross-infection with pathogenic microorganisms. As governmental agencies "discovered" dentistry, regulations forced practitioners to assume duties not previously required. Also, substantial costs of compliance became a significant consideration to employers. Managing the compliance and cost considerations of governmental regulation requires dedicating personnel, preferably one person, to the management of infection control, hazards communication, and infectious waste disposal tasks. predictably, this person--the safety supervisor--will develop into the new auxiliary specialist of the 1990s.

The ADA Council on Dental Therapeutics recognizes many commercial products as effective for use in dentistry as disinfectants or sterilants. Some of the products act only as disinfectants and do not sterilize; some have an odor that is unpleasant; others stain or bleach surfaces; and some of the formulations are corrosive to metallic surfaces. Therefore, it is essential that, before purchasing a chemical sterilant/disinfectant or a surface disinfectant for routine use, the practitioner, dental hygienist, and assistant obtain as much detailed information as possible. With sufficient information, subsequent decisions may be used on appropriate efficacy criteria, and the potential for product misuse may be reduced.

Dentistry has become subject to rapid change in office safety, including infection control and hazards management. This change includes increasingly diverse governmental regulations and compliance with such regulations, influencing the very basics of dental practice. As all practitioners are moving toward compliance, costs are increasing substantially. Various sources estimate such increases at between 12.5% and 19%, and it is doubtful whether third-party reimbursement will offset these additional costs. As practitioners plan methods for offsetting the costs of office safety, consideration should be given to providing patients oral and printed information to preclude misinterpretation of the reasons for fee escalation caused by implementation of chemical hazards communication, infection control, and waste disposal programs mandated by OSHA, EPA, and state or other regulatory authorities. The decade of the 1990s may well become the period of meeting the formidable microbiological and regulatory challenges of the 1980s.

One of the problems being investigated at this laboratory is the affects of White Diarrhea infection upon mature hens, their eggs and their offspring. A part of this problem involves a bacteriological study, with special reference to Salmonella pullora (Bacterium pullorum), of eggs laid by hens reacting to the serum agglutination test which is employed for detecting birds that harbor or have harbored the microorganisms causing this disease. This paper presents the results obtained this spring upon examining the eggs laid by 14 reacting White Leghorn hens which belonged to a flock of high producing birds. Considerable work has been done on this phase of the problem by other workers, notably, Rettger and Stoneburn1–2, Rettger, Kirkpatrick and Stoneburn3, Rettger4, Jones5, Gage, Paige, Hyland6, Rettger7, Hadley and Caldwell8 and May9. SOURCE OF THE HENS FURNISHING EGGS Fifteen White Leghorn hens, which had recently reacted to the macroscopic agglutination test for . . .

This paper supplements a previous article on the same subject which appeared in P oultry S cience , Vol. 6, No. 3. In the former article the data was secured from fourteen White Leghorn hens. The material in this paper was obtained from thirteen Rhode Island Red hens. The experiment was conducted in the same manner as the one previously reported, except that the period over which the hens were trapnested and eggs were examined was of two month’s duration instead of three. The White Leghorn hens used in the other experiment were obtained from a flock in-which practically no, or at least very slight, losses from bacillary white diarrhea were said to have occurred during the past two or three years. On the other hand, the Rhode Island Red hens employed in this experiment came from a flock in which rather heavy losses occurred during the previous spring. The owner of . . .

Although it is not possible to cover all of the ramifications of infection control in prosthodontics, currently available information may be summarized as follows: 1. All dental disciplines must be concerned with the dangers involved in the spread of certain infectious diseases. 2. Prosthodontists and their ancillary personnel may be exposed to certain diseases predominantly found in adult patients, such as hepatitis B and tuberculosis. 3. Dentists must ensure that at least six basic infection control procedures are observed when treating patients. 4. Additional control procedures should be observed in the fabrication and handling of impressions and dental prosthesis. 5. Dental offices and commercial laboratories should work closely together to coordinate control of potential cross-infection between the two disciplines. The control of infectious diseases in prosthodontics is not difficult. It requires the expenditure of a little time, a little money, and most important, a great deal of discipline. The rewards are well worth the additional effort and could even be lifesaving.