ABSTRACT
AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the hindrances in communication between the prosthodontic office and the laboratory technicians through work authorization. SETTING AND DESIGN: A questionnaire-based survey was carried out to assess communication gap between dentist and lab technicians through work authorization for FDPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 114 dental laboratory technicians were provided with a questionnaire regarding work authorization form via Google doc files. The survey focused questions pertaining to fulfilling the following areas of work authorization: patient's information, name of the prescribing dentist, material for the prosthesis, pontic design of the prosthesis, shade description, and date of completion of work. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The number of responses received was statistically evaluated using Fisher's t-test and nonparametric Spearman's correlation coefficient (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: Eighty-five (74.5%) out of 114 laboratory technicians surveyed responded to the questionnaire. The patient's general information was satisfactorily filled in 75%-100% of the forms. Information regarding the pontic design, staining diagram, and preferred margin were on the lower side of the scale ranging between 25% and 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The survey concluded that areas of work authorization with respect to fixed dental prosthesis require attention and need to be adequately filled by the dentist. In addition, the study suggests that the foundation of communication skill training programs in work authorization should be laid from the undergraduate curriculum. The concerned authorized bodies/specialty organizations should formulate a standardized work authorization format which can bridge the wide gap between the crown and bridge office and laboratory.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Oral cavity is colonised by numerous micro-organisms that form a biofilm on the acrylic resin. Hence, routine hygiene is essential to prevent oral mucosal inflammation and lesions. Knowledge of appropriate disinfecting agents for acrylic resins is crucial in this context. AIM: To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of four commercially available disinfectants on heat cure acrylic resin specimens contaminated with standard and clinical strains of two micro-organisms commonly inhabiting the oral microflora. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred acrylic resin specimens (n=200), 10 in each group were contaminated in vitro with 1x106 cells/ml suspensions of standard and clinical strains of micro-organisms (Candida albicans and Streptococcus mutans) and were immersed in four disinfectants (1% sodium hypochlorite, 2% chlorhexidine digluconate, 2% glutaraldehyde and 3.8% sodium perborate) for 10 minutes. The control group was not subjected to any disinfection process. For collection of clinical strains, oral swab was passed over the buccal mucosa and grown on blood agar culture media. Organism confirmation was done by growing them on selective culture media. Final counts of micro-organisms per ml were performed by plating method for evaluation of microbial level reduction. Results obtained were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: Standard strains of Candida albicans (C) and Streptoccocus mutans (S) subjected to various disinfectants showed varied mean Colony Forming Units per ml (CFU/ml) from <10,000 to 25,000 and <10000 to <50,000 respectively. Clinical strains and of Candida albicans (C) and Streptococcus mutans (S) subjected to various disinfectants showed varied mean CFU/ml from <10,000 to 50,000 and from 10,000 to 50,000 respectively. Control groups showed maximum mean CFU/ml (>105). All intergroup comparisons were highly significant (p<0.001; HS) and intragroup comparisons were significant (p<0.05; S) except the comparison of clinical strains of Streptococcusmutans subjected to 2% chlorhexidine digluconate and 2% glutaraldehyde which was found to be non significant (p>0.05; NS). CONCLUSION: Almost 1% sodium hypochlorite was found to be the most effective disinfectant for both Candida albicans and Streptococcus mutans. The least effective disinfectant being: 3.8% sodium perborate.
