Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography

© 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology. Objectives: (1) To compare the efficacy of a commercially available hygienic sheath and an alternative plastic bag in preventing contamination of the imaging plate during intraoral radiography and (2) to compare patient discomfort...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Charuakkra A., Prapayasatok S., Janhom A., Verochana K., Mahasantipiya P.
Format: Journal
Published: 2017
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85012124614&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/40940
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-40940
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-409402017-09-28T04:14:41Z Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography Charuakkra A. Prapayasatok S. Janhom A. Verochana K. Mahasantipiya P. © 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology. Objectives: (1) To compare the efficacy of a commercially available hygienic sheath and an alternative plastic bag in preventing contamination of the imaging plate during intraoral radiography and (2) to compare patient discomfort when using the hygienic sheath and the plastic bag. Methods: 60 sterilized Size 2 imaging plates covered with either the hygienic sheath (n = 30) or the plastic bag (n = 30) were used to simulate digital periapical radiographic examination in 30 volunteer patients. After disinfection, each plate was swabbed. The swabbed medium was then plated on trypticase soy agar and incubated. Bacterial colonies were counted. Patient discomfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score. The comparison of the number of bacterial colonies and VAS scores between the two groups was tested by paired t-test at p < 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies between the two groups (p = 0.745). Of all the plates, 10% plates yielded bacterial colonies. The mean count of bacterial colonies for both groups was 10-20 CFU ml -1 . However, there was a significant difference between VAS scores for the two systems (p = 0.000). The mean VAS scores (range 0-10) for patient discomfort for the hygienic sheath group and the plastic bag group were 3.03 and 5.33, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the design of this study, the alternative barrier provided similar results to those commercially available. Regarding the type of barrier envelope, the hygienic sheath induced less discomfort than the plastic bag. 2017-09-28T04:14:41Z 2017-09-28T04:14:41Z 2017-01-01 Journal 0250832X 2-s2.0-85012124614 10.1259/dmfr.20160253 https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85012124614&origin=inward http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/40940
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
description © 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology. Objectives: (1) To compare the efficacy of a commercially available hygienic sheath and an alternative plastic bag in preventing contamination of the imaging plate during intraoral radiography and (2) to compare patient discomfort when using the hygienic sheath and the plastic bag. Methods: 60 sterilized Size 2 imaging plates covered with either the hygienic sheath (n = 30) or the plastic bag (n = 30) were used to simulate digital periapical radiographic examination in 30 volunteer patients. After disinfection, each plate was swabbed. The swabbed medium was then plated on trypticase soy agar and incubated. Bacterial colonies were counted. Patient discomfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score. The comparison of the number of bacterial colonies and VAS scores between the two groups was tested by paired t-test at p < 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies between the two groups (p = 0.745). Of all the plates, 10% plates yielded bacterial colonies. The mean count of bacterial colonies for both groups was 10-20 CFU ml -1 . However, there was a significant difference between VAS scores for the two systems (p = 0.000). The mean VAS scores (range 0-10) for patient discomfort for the hygienic sheath group and the plastic bag group were 3.03 and 5.33, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the design of this study, the alternative barrier provided similar results to those commercially available. Regarding the type of barrier envelope, the hygienic sheath induced less discomfort than the plastic bag.
format Journal
author Charuakkra A.
Prapayasatok S.
Janhom A.
Verochana K.
Mahasantipiya P.
spellingShingle Charuakkra A.
Prapayasatok S.
Janhom A.
Verochana K.
Mahasantipiya P.
Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
author_facet Charuakkra A.
Prapayasatok S.
Janhom A.
Verochana K.
Mahasantipiya P.
author_sort Charuakkra A.
title Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
title_short Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
title_full Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
title_fullStr Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
title_full_unstemmed Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
title_sort infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
publishDate 2017
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85012124614&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/40940
_version_ 1681421910222569472