Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:36:37.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detection and Quantification of Dental Unit Water Line Contamination by Oral Streptococci

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Stefano Petti  and
Gianfranco Tarsitani
Stefano Petti*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Sciences “G. Sanarelli, ”, University “La Sapienza, ” Rome, Italy
Gianfranco Tarsitani
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Sciences “G. Sanarelli, ”, University “La Sapienza, ” Rome, Italy
*
Dept. Public Health Sciences “G. Sanarelli, ”, University “La Sapienza, ”P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

(1) To investigate the prevalence of oral streptococci (OS) and biological indicators of water contamination by oral fluids in water from dental unit water lines (DUWs) by detection and quantification and of saprophytes indigenous to the oral cavity. (2) To test whether measurement of the total cultivable mesophilic flora (TCF), the parameter commonly used to monitor water quality in DUWs, is an effective predictor for OS contamination.

Design.

Survey of 21 dental units equipped with antiretraction devices. Water samples were collected from air-water syringes, cup fillers, tap water, and before and during the working day.

Setting.

Units were from 7 public dental offices selected for convenience from among those in proximity of the microbiological laboratory.

Methods.

For detection of OS, samples were plated on an enriched medium, to revitalize the organisms. Colonies were subcultured on a selective medium and biochemically identified (lower detection limit, 1 cfu/mL). For measurement of the TCF, samples were plated on a nutrient-poor medium. Cultures with colony counts greater than 200 cfu/mL were considered to be TCF positive. The sensitivity and specificity of TCF positivity in predicting OS detection was calculated.

Results.

Prevalence rates for OS contamination and for TCF positivity were, respectively, 34.4% (11 of 32 samples) and 25.0% (8 of 32 samples) for syringes, 27.8% (10 of 36 samples) and 8.3% (3 of 36 samples) for cup fillers, and 0.0% (0 of 7 samples) for tap water. OS contamination levels ranged from 1 to 6 cfu/mL. No statistically significant differences were found between samples obtained before and during the working day. TCF positivity did not predict OS contamination effectively, because of low sensitivity.

Conclusions.

Given the absence of OS in tap water, the reported prevalence of OS contamination suggests that oral fluids are aspirated during dental therapy with relatively high frequency and that DUWs can potentially expose successive patients to bloodborne cross-infections.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , May 2006 , pp. 504 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Mills, SE. The dental unit waterline controversy: defusing the myths, defining the solutions. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131:1427–1441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.De Paola, LG, Mangan, D, Mills, SE, Costerton, W, Barbeau, J, Shearer, B, Barlett, J. A review of the science regarding dental unit waterlines. J Am Dent Assoc 2002; 133:1199–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Pankhurst, CL, Johnoson, NW, Woods, RG. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines: the scientific argument. Int Dent J 1998; 48:359–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.van der Wende, E, Characklis, WG, Smith, DB. Biofilms and bacterial drinking water quality. Wat Res 1989; 23:1313–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.European Community. Council directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption. Off J Eur Community 1998;L330:32–54.Google Scholar
6.American Dental Association-Council on Scientific Affairs. Dental unit waterlines: approaching the year 2000. J Am Dent Assoc 1999; 130:1653–1664.Google Scholar
7.Kohn, WG, Collins, AS, Cleveland, JL, Harte, JA, Eklund, KJ, Malvitz, DM, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings—2003. MMWR Recomm Rep 2003;52(RR-17):1–61.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Pankhurst, CL, Philpott-Howard, JN. The microbiological quality of water in dental chair units. J Hosp Infect 1993; 23:167–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Bagga, BSR, Murphy, RA, Anderson, AW, Punwani, I. Contamination of dental unit cooling water with oral microorganisms and its prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 1984; 109:712–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lewis, DL, Arens, M, Appleton, SS, et al. Cross-contamination potential with dental equipment. Lancet 1992; 340:1252–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Berlutti, F, Testarelli, L, Vaia, F, De Luca, M, Dolci, G. Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines. J Dent 2003; 31:105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Del Nero, F. Letter to the editor [Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines]. J Dent 2004; 32:169–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Berlutti, F. Reply to the letter to the editor [Efficacy of anti-retraction devices in preventing bacterial contamination of dental unit water lines]. J Dent 2004; 32:171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Williams, JF, Molinari, JA, Andrews, N. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines: origins and characteristics. Compendium 1996; 17:538–550.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Walker, JT, Bradshaw, DJ, Bennett, AM, Fulford, ML, Martin, MV, Marsh, PD. Microbial biofilm formation and contamination of dental-unit water systems in general dental practice. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000; 66:3363–3367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Hackney, RW, Crawford, JJ, Tulis, JJ. Using a biological indicator to detect potential sources of cross-contamination in the dental operatory. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129:1567–1577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Hardie, JM, Whiley, RA. The genus Streptococcus—oral. In: Balows, A, Truper, HG, Dworkin, M, Harder, W, Schleifer, KH, eds. The Prokaryotes, 2nd ed. New York: Springer Verlag; 1991:1421–1449.Google Scholar
18.Gledhill, WE, Casida, LE. Predominant catalase-negative soil bacteria. I. Streptococcal population indigenous to soil. Appl Microbiol 1969; 17:208–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Petti, S, Tarsitani, G. Intra-individual variations of salivary microbial levels in young adults. Eur J Oral Set 1998; 106:616–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Fitzgibbon, EJ, Bartzokas, CA, Martin, MV, Gibson, MF, Graham, R. The source, frequency and extent of bacterial contamination of dental unit water systems. Br Dent J 1984; 157:98–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Barbeau, J, Tanguay, R, Faucher, E, et al. Multiparametric analysis of waterline contamination in dental units. Appl Environ Microbiol 1996; 62:3954–3959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Barbeau, J, ten Bokum, L, Gauthier, C, Prevost, A. Cross-contamination potential of saliva ejectors used in dentistry. J Hosp Infect 1998; 40:303–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Shepherd, PA, Shojaei, MA, Eleazer, PD, van Stewart, A, Staat, RH. Clearance of biofilms from dental unit waterlines through the use of hydroperoxide ion-phase transfer catalysts. Quintessence Int 2001; 32:755–761.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Kingman, A. Statistical issues in risk models for caries. In: Bader, JD, ed. Risk Assessment in Dentistry, 1st ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Dental Ecology; 1990:193–200.Google Scholar
25.Cottone, JA, Puttaiah, R. Viral hepatitis and hepatitis vaccines. In: Cottone, JA, Terezhalmy, GT, Molinari, JA, eds. Practical Infection Control in Dentistry, 2nd ed. Meida, PA: Williams & Wilkins 1996:15–47.Google Scholar
26.Yeh, C-K, Puttaiah, R, Cottone, JA. Human immunodeficiency virus infection, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and related infections. In: Cottone, JA, Terezhalmy, GT, Molinari, JA, eds. Practical Infection Control in Dentistry, 2nd ed. Media: Williams & Wilkins 1996:48–74.Google Scholar
27.De Paola, LG. Managing the care of patients infected with bloodborne diseases. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134:350–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Leclerc, H, Schwartzbrod, L, Dei-Cas, E. Microbial agents associated with waterborne diseases. Crit Rev Microbiol 2002; 28:371–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Daschner, F. Saliva ejectors in dentistry. J Hosp Infect 1999; 42:78–79.Google ScholarPubMed
30.Karpay, RI, Plamondon, TJ, Mills, SE, Dove, SB. Validation of an inoffice dental unit water monitoring technique. J Am Dent Assoc 1998; 129:207–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Karpay, RI, Plamondon, TJ, Mills, SE. Comparison of methods to enumerate bacteria in dental unit water lines. Curr Microbiol 1999; 38:132–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed