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: Arnon Charuakkra, Sangsom Prapayasatok, Apirum Janhom, Karune Verochana, Phattaranant Mahasantipiya
Format: Journal
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85012124614&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/57188
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
id th-cmuir.6653943832-57188
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-571882018-09-05T03:49:50Z Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography Arnon Charuakkra Sangsom Prapayasatok Apirum Janhom Karune Verochana Phattaranant Mahasantipiya Dentistry Medicine © 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. 2018-09-05T03:36:15Z 2018-09-05T03:36:15Z 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/6653943832/57188
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
topic Dentistry
Medicine
spellingShingle Dentistry
Medicine
Arnon Charuakkra
Sangsom Prapayasatok
Apirum Janhom
Karune Verochana
Phattaranant Mahasantipiya
Infection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiography
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 Arnon Charuakkra
Sangsom Prapayasatok
Apirum Janhom
Karune Verochana
Phattaranant Mahasantipiya
author_facet Arnon Charuakkra
Sangsom Prapayasatok
Apirum Janhom
Karune Verochana
Phattaranant Mahasantipiya
author_sort Arnon Charuakkra
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 2018
url https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85012124614&origin=inward
http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/57188
_version_ 1681424832265191424