Simulated microbe removal around finger rings using different hand sanitation methods / 国际口腔科学杂志·英文版

<p><b>AIM</b>It is our opinion that the CDC and the WHO have underestimated cross-contamination under examination gloves in dental clinics while wearing jewelry, such as finger rings. These agencies only "recommend" removing jewelry, and only washing hands for 15 seconds with soap and warm water before donning gloves. This study examined several washing procedures and finger rings using simulated microbes.</p><p><b>METHODOLOGY</b>A gloved rubber hand manikin was made and fitted with a fresh disposable vinyl glove. Four fingers were fitted with rings or no ring, dusted with simulated microbes, and washed with a scrub brush for 5, 15, and 25 seconds under 20 degrees C and 40 degrees C water alone, or with liquid hand soap. Light levels (in lux) of fluorescent powder before and after washing were measured and delta scores calculated for changes in light levels, equivalent to effectiveness of hand washing procedures. A full-factorial, 3-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences among levels of the three study factors-time, temperature, and soap use. Tukey's post hoc honestly significant difference (HSD) test was applied to significant factors to examine pair-wise differences between factor levels.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>It was found that the longer the hands with rings were washed with a scrub brush under flowing water, the more simulated microbes were removed. By 25 seconds, all methods were essentially the same. Simulated microbes were more difficult to remove from the palm compared to the back of the hand. The liquid hand soap used in this study was more effective with warm water than cold. When given a choice of washing with cold water up to 15 seconds, it would be preferable not to use soap to remove simulated microbes. Qualitatively, the outer surface of finger rings were more effectively cleaned than the crevice below the ring, and the ring with a stone setting appeared to accumulate and retain simulated microbes more than other rings.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The most effective treatment was washing with warm water and liquid soap. Longer times were more effective. Rings should not be worn under examination gloves due to difficulty cleaning in the crevice under the ring, and the well-known consequences of cross-contamination between the patient and the health care worker.</p>

Skin reactions to pimecrolimus cream 1% in patients allergic to propylene glycol: a double-blind randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The low concentration of propylene glycol (PG) in pimecrolimus cream makes it unlikely that the cream will induce a PG-related irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To assess reactions to pimecrolimus cream in patients who are allergic to PG. METHODS: A pilot double-blind within-patient study in 20 patients, with patch testing followed by a repeated open application test (ROAT). Limitations were that patch tests and ROATs were performed on normal skin, which may be less likely to develop an allergic response than would areas of active dermatitis. RESULTS: Positive PG patch-test results were confirmed in 16 patients. Patch-test scores were compatible with allergic reactions in only two patients. However, ROAT scores were negative for these two patients. Reactions with pimecrolimus or vehicle during ROAT were identified in three patients, but an allergic reaction was uncertain because none of these patients reacted with both pimecrolimus cream and vehicle. Reactions with pimecrolimus were significantly less frequent (p<.01) and less severe (p=.02) than with PG. CONCLUSION: In patients allergic to PG, pimecrolimus cream showed a very low potential to elicit allergic skin reactions.