Attitudes of general dental practitioners in Europe to the microbial risk associated with dental unit water systems.

UNLABELLED: Dental Unit Water Systems (DUWS) are used in dental practices to provide water for cooling of dental equipment and irrigation of the oral cavity. However, they have been demonstrated to be contaminated with micro-organisms. There are currently no European Union (EU) Commission guidelines for the microbial quality of water discharged by DUWS. This study was part of an EU research programme to investigate the microbial contamination of DUWS in general dental practice (GDP) in the UK, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, Greece and Spain. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a questionnaire survey on the type of DUWS in use and determine the attitude of GDPs to the risk of microbial infection from DUWS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The questionnaire was written and translated into the language of each country before being posted to each participating dentist. Dentists were asked to complete the questionnaire survey and return it by post. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The major findings were that the majority of dentists did not clean, disinfect or determine the microbial load of their DUWS, and that dentists would welcome regular monitoring and advice on maintaining their DUWS; the introduction of guidelines; and recommendations on controlling the microbial load of DUWS.

Comparison of the efficacies of disinfectants to control microbial contamination in dental unit water systems in general dental practices across the European Union.

Water delivered by dental unit water systems (DUWS) in general dental practices can harbor high numbers of bacteria, including opportunistic pathogens. Biofilms on tubing within DUWS provide a reservoir for microorganisms and should be controlled. This study compared disinfection products for their ability to meet the American Dental Association's guideline of <200 CFU x ml(-1) for DUWS water. Alpron, BioBlue, Dentosept, Oxygenal, Sanosil, Sterilex Ultra, and Ster4Spray were tested in DUWS (n = 134) in Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Weekly water samples were tested for total viable counts (TVCs) on yeast extract agar, and, where possible, the effects of products on established biofilm (TVCs) were measured. A 4- to 5-week baseline measurement period was followed by 6 to 8 weeks of disinfection (intermittent or continuous product application). DUWS water TVCs before disinfection ranged from 0 to 5.41 log CFU x ml(-1). Disinfectants achieved reductions in the median water TVC ranging from 0.69 (Ster4Spray) to 3.11 (Dentosept) log CFU x ml(-1), although occasional high values (up to 4.88 log CFU x ml(-1)) occurred with all products. Before treatment, 64% of all baseline samples exceeded American Dental Association guidelines, compared to only 17% following commencement of treatment; where tested, biofilm TVCs were reduced to below detectable levels. The antimicrobial efficacies of products varied (e.g., 91% of water samples from DUWS treated with Dentosept or Oxygenal met American Dental Association guidelines, compared to 60% of those treated with Ster4Spray). Overall, the continuously applied products performed better than those applied intermittently. The most effective products were Dentosept and Oxygenal, although Dentosept gave the most consistent and sustained antimicrobial effect over time.

Microbiological evaluation of dental unit water systems in general dental practice in Europe.

A range of opportunistic pathogens have been associated with dental unit water systems (DUWS), particularly in the biofilms that can line the tubing. This study therefore aimed to assess the microbiology of DUWS and biofilms in general dental practices across seven European countries, including the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland (IRL), Greece (GR), Spain (ES), Germany (D), Denmark (DK) and the Netherlands (NL). Water supplied by 51% of 237 dental unit water lines exceeded current American Dental Association recommendations of < or = 200 colony-forming units (CFU) ml(-1). Microbiological loading of the source waters was between 0 (Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain) and 4.67 (IRL) log CFU ml(-1); water line samples from the DUWS ranged from 1.52 (ES) to 2.79 (GR) log CFU ml(-1); and biofilm counts ranged from 1.49 (GR) to 3.22 (DK) log CFU.cm(-2). Opportunistic pathogens such as legionellae (DK and ES), including Legionella pneumophila SG1 (DK and GR), and Mycobacterium spp. (DK, NL, GR, D and ES) were recovered occasionally. Presumptive oral streptococci (ES and NL), oral anaerobes (GR), Candida spp. (UK, NL and ES) and blood (GR and IRL) were detected at relatively low frequencies, but their presence indicated a failure of the 3-in-1 antiretraction valve, leading to back siphonage of oral fluids into the water and biofilm phase. These findings confirm that a substantial proportion of DUWS have high levels of microbial contamination, irrespective of country, type of equipment and source water. The study emphasizes the need for effective mechanisms to reduce the microbial burden within DUWS, and highlights the risk of occupational exposure and cross-infection in general dental practice.