Résumé
En la práctica clínica, los odontólogos se encuentran expuestos al riesgo de infecciones, que se transmiten a través de instrumentos contaminados con exudados. Instrumentos en contacto con el personal deben estar esterilizados o sometidos a un proceso de desinfección. Se realizó un estudio transversal-prospectivo a 30 pacientes, de los que se tomaron tres muestras con espejos estériles, pasando por fondo de saco, carrillos y lengua, después las muestras se desinfectaron, se realizó el hisopado de cada espejo y se incubó en agar tripticaseína-soya (TSA) 24 horas a 37 oC. Pasadas 24 horas se realizaron diluciones en tubos Eppendorf, y se sembraron en cajas de Petri con agar sangre, se incubaron por 48 horas a 37 oC; se contabilizaron las unidades formadoras de colonias (UFC) y registraron para su análisis. Al obtener los resultados se encontró que ID 213 tuvo mayor reducción con una media = 62.5 en comparación con Zeta 1 Ultra, media = 89.23, y control, media = 164.50, de igual manera se observó una diferencia en reducción de UFC/mL entre ID 213 con respecto a Zeta 1 Ultra con significancia de 0.012. Ambos desinfectantes resultaron efectivos, pero se estableció que ID 213 utilizando la tina ultrasónica resulta más efectivo en la reducción de UFC, que Zeta 1 Ultra (AU)
In clinical practice, dentists are exposed to the risk of infections, which are transmitted through instruments contaminated with exudates. Instruments in contact with personnel must be sterilized or subjected to a disinfection process. A cross-sectional-prospective study was carried out in 30 patients. From which three samples were taken with sterile mirrors, passing through cul-de-sac, cheeks and tongue, later the samples were disinfected with disinfectants, each mirror was swabbed and incubated in TSA 24 hours at 37 oC. After 24 hours, dilutions were made in Eppendorf tubes, and they were seeded in Petri dishes with blood agar, they were incubated 48 hours at 37 oC; CFUs were accounted for and recorded for analysis. When obtaining the results, it was found that ID 213 had a greater reduction with mean = 62.5 compared to Zeta 1 Ultra mean = 89.23 and control mean = 164.50, in the same way a difference in reduction of CFU/mL was observed between ID 213 with respect to Zeta 1 Ultra with significance of 0.012. Both disinfectants were effective but it was established that ID 213 using the ultrasonic tub is more effective in reducing CFU, than Zeta 1 Ultra (AU)