REVIEW PAPER
Prosthetic impressions disinfectants and evaluation of their effectiveness – review of the literature
 
More details
Hide details
1
Poradnia Protetyki Stomatologicznej, Uniwersytecka Klinika Stomatologiczna w Krakowie
2
Katedra Protetyki Stomatologicznej, Instytut Stomatologii, Wydział Lekarski, Collegium Medicum, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Anna Rachwalska   

Poradnia Protetyki Stomatologicznej, Uniwersytecka Klinika Stomatologiczna w Krakowie, Montelupich, 31-155, Kraków
Submission date: 2020-09-25
Final revision date: 2020-12-07
Acceptance date: 2020-12-07
Publication date: 2020-12-20
 
Prosthodontics 2020;70(4):394–406
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Disinfection of dental materials is of fundamental importance with regard to protection of dental staff. Each dental impression, regardless of the method and type of material used, should be subjected to a disinfection process prior to being sent to the laboratory. Dentists, assistants, office staff, and dental technicians should be aware of the mechanisms by which cross-infections are spread in the daily dental practice so that they know how to prevent them as effectively as possible.

Aim of the study:
To review various materials used to disinfect dental impressions and to assess their effectiveness, based on literature.

Material and methods:
Using the key words: “dental impression”, “dental disinfectants” and “impression disinfection”, PUBMED database and EMBASE database were searched for articles in English from 2000-2020.

Results:
Out of 549 publications, 29 were selected for analysis describing the results of research on the evaluation of materials used to disinfect impressions. Impression disinfection has been presented as a mandatory procedure preceding further handling of the impression taken, and confirmed by the analysis of the effectiveness of the available disinfection agents. It provides the free choice of preparations and method of their application in accordance with official recommendations, epidemiological risks, characteristics of the given impression material, and doctor’s preferences.

Conclusions:
Due to the increased epidemic regime, the development and dissemination of non-contact techniques that allow obtaining an oral impression in a form that does not require disinfection is anticipated. However, intraoral scanners cannot replace conventional dental impressions. An increase in the number of studies on the most commonly used agents, such as sodium hypochlorite and glutaraldehyde, should be expected. It is also advisable to look for new, alternative methods of decontamination that ensure the stability of impression materials.

eISSN:2391-601X
ISSN:0033-1783