ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To know the disinfection efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water(EOW) and glutaraldehyde on clinical used gastroscope and enteroscope in our hospital and to analyze their stability and probable harm.METHODS The gastroscope and enteroscope before and after use on randomly selected outpatients and inpatients were examined on their contamination,and the efficacy of EOW was compared with that of glutaraldehyde.RESULTS After using EOW and glutaraldehyde to disinfect the gastroscope and enteroscope the former showed that its killing rate on commonly encountered pathogens for 1 min was 93.75-98.22%,for 3 min was 81.20-89.29%,and for 5 min was 100.00%;the latter showed that its killing rate for 3 min was 81.20-89.29%,for 5 min was 90.38-93.04%,and for 10 min was 99.92-99.96%.EOW was non-irritative to mucosa,and didn′t cause allergic reaction,but its stability was poor.The glutaraldehyle could bring some side effects,such as some allergy,and mucosa stimulation.CONCLUSIONS It only needs 3-5 min for EOW to kill polluted bacteria on gastroscope and enteroscope to attain the disinfection eligibility,but glutaraldehyde needs more than 10 min to get to the disinfection eligibility.The effect of EOW is strong,rapid,active and environment-safe,it is worthy of application,but it must be applied immediately as soon as possible after production.The use of glutaraldehyde must strengthen the measures of personal protection.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To clinically evaluate the efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water (EOW) as a root canal irrigation solution on disinfecting bacteria and removing the smear-layer to keep the non-bacterium state in the root canal. Methods: In the first experiment, 108 single-rooted teeth that needed root canal treatment were randomly divided into two groups. EOW was used as the root canal irrigation solution in the experimental group while 30 ml/L H2O2, saline solution, and 75 g/L EDTA solution were used as controls. Bacteriological examinations were conducted from each tooth before and after treatment with the root canal irrigation solutions. In the second experiment, the 20 fresh human extracted teeth were divided into two groups and treated as same as the first experiment in root canal preparation and irrigation. After irrigation, the apical canal wall was observed using SEM. Results: There was no significant difference in bacterial growth and removing the smear layer between the group using EOW and that using saline solution, 30 ml/L H2O2 and 75 g/L EDTA solution. Conclusion:The results indicate EOW is useful as a clinical root canal irrigation solution.