PubMed · 5274043
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1969. [Maintenance notes].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5274043/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Effective cross-contamination prevention is critical for direct digital radiography, or DDR, sensors, which are not sterilizable; however, current manufacturers' recommendations for standard precautions are limited to the use of plastic barrier sheaths, which are commonly known to tear or leak. The authors sought to determine the incidence of digital radiography barrier-sheath leakage, with and without additional latex finger cot protection, as measured by a water pressure test. METHODS: Four hundred plastic barrier sheaths were randomly assigned to four groups based on intraoral radiograph positioning device use and supplemental barrier protection with a latex finger cot. Sheaths were carefully placed to cover DDR sensors for a single intraoral use, gently removed from the sensors and tested for leakage through a water pressure technique. RESULTS: Perforations occurred in 44 to 51 percent of plastic sheaths after a single radiographic exposure. However, only up to 6 percent of the plastic sheaths that were covered by a latex finger cot leaked during the water pressure test. CONCLUSIONS: At least 44 percent of the plastic barrier sheaths leaked after a single intraoral radiographic exposure. Use of a latex finger cot over the plastic sheath significantly reduced leakage to no more than 6 percent. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Latex finger cots used in conjunction with the standard plastic sheaths that cover DDR sensors may more effectively prevent cross-contamination than do plastic sheaths alone. Dentists who use DDR sensors during highly invasive dental procedures such as dental implant surgery are encouraged to consider supplemental barrier protection for these delicate, expensive and nonsterilizable sensors to prevent patient cross-contamination.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare two "stylus" methods for measuring surface texture of dental tissues and materials. METHODS: The two styli chosen were a contact diamond stylus and a non-contact focussed laser stylus attached to the same measuring apparatus. RESULTS: These indicate that there are significant differences between those obtained from surface texture measurements using a non-contact laser stylus and a diamond contact stylus method despite being mounted in the same profilometer. This is valid for both the test specimens of known surface texture, provided by the manufacturers, and for a "real world" simulation using contoured and finished Dicor ceramic blocks. The only significant agreement between the two styli was found for the Ra parameter. This should not be used alone to describe the roughness of a surface because the parameter is not sensitive to profile shape. Owing to the properties of the stylus used it is essential that the limitations of surface profilometry be recognised. SIGNIFICANCE: Caution should be exercised when comparing the results of surface texture studies of dental hard tissues and restorative materials using varying types of stylus attached to a surface profilometer.