Volume 7, Issue 2 (Summer 2018)                   3dj 2018, 7(2): 77-84 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Pournasiri I, Neshandar Asli H, Abbaspour R, Maleki D. The Effects of Different Sterilization Methods on the Uniformity of Diamond Dental Burs and Changes in the Cutting Edge Carbide Burs. 3dj. 2018; 7 (2) :77-84
URL: http://3dj.gums.ac.ir/article-1-314-en.html
1- Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
2- General Practitioner, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
3- Dentistry Student, Student Research Committee, Dental Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Abstract:   (386 Views)
Introduction: Dental burs are among the most commonly used instruments in dental offices and have the most possible cross-contamination risks. The sterilization of dental burs is highly noted and necessary. The present study evaluated the effects of different sterilization methods on the uniformity of diamond dental burs and changes in the cutting edge carbide burs.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, to assess the results of sterilization, 36 burs (18 diamond burs and 18 carbide burs) were studied. In total, 18 diamond burs using R software were randomly divided into the 3 groups of 6 burs (dry-clave group, autoclave group, and cold sterilization group). Each group was divided into the 2 subgroups of 3 burs; the first subgroup received 5 cycles and the second subgroup received 15 cycles of sterilization. The same process was used for 18 carbide burs to categorize them into groups and subgroups. A pre-assessment was conducted by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). After the sterilization cycles, a post-test SEM was performed. Adobe Photoshop 2017 was used in a gray scale of 12 to compare the pre-test and post-test differences. Kruskal-Wallis test, Analysis of Variance, Mann-Whitney U test, and Post Hoc Tukey test were used to analyze the obtained data in SPSS at a significance level of P=0.05.
Results: Dry-clave was the best approach in 5 cycles of sterilization for diamond and carbide burs. Moreover, autoclave was the best method for 5 cycles of sterilization (P<0.05). In 15 cycles of sterilization of diamond and carbide burs, the best method was auto-clave which exhibited a significant difference in carbide burs.
Conclusion: Dry-clave and autoclave were the most appropriate approaches for 5 and 15 cycles of sterilization of diamond burs, respectively. In sterilization of carbide, in both 5 and 15 cycles, autoclave was the best method. All of the sterilization methods caused corrosion, discoloration, and the loss of integrity in carbide burs; however, these changes were minimum in the autoclave method. In conclusion, auto-clave method is recommended due to causing the least changes in carbide and diamond burs.
Full-Text [PDF 1284 kb]   (157 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (59 Views)  

Received: 2017/12/10 | Accepted: 2018/03/28 | Published: 2018/06/1

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

© 2019 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Dentomaxillofacial

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb