Introduction: Dental Unit Waterlines (DUWLs) have shown to be a source of Legionella infection. We report the experience of different dental healthcare settings where a risk management plan was implemented. Materials and methods: In a Hospital Odontostomatology Clinic (HOC) and three Private Dental Clinics (PDCs) housing 13 and six dental units (DUs), respectively, an assessment checklist was applied to evaluate staff compliance with guideline recommendations. DUWLs microbial parameters were investigated before and after the application of corrective actions. Results: In the HOC a poor adherence to good practices was demonstrated, whereas protocols were carefully applied in PDCs. L. pneumophila sg 2–15 was isolated in 31% (4/13) and 33% (2/6) of DUs in HOC and PDCs, respectively, mainly from handpieces (32%, 6/19) with counts >102 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/L), often associated with P. aeruginosa (68%, 13/19). The shock disinfection with 3% v/v hydrogen peroxide (HP) showed a limited effect, with a recolonization period of about 4 weeks. Legionella was eradicated only after 6% v/v HP shock disinfection and filters-installation, whilst P. aeruginosa after the third shock disinfection with a solution of 4% v/v HP and biodegradable surfactants. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the presence and persistence of microbial contamination within the DUWLs, which required strict adherence to control measures and the choice of effective disinfectants.

Prevention and control of legionella and pseudomonas spp. Colonization in dental units

Totaro M.;Baggiani A.;Casini B.
2020-01-01

Abstract

Introduction: Dental Unit Waterlines (DUWLs) have shown to be a source of Legionella infection. We report the experience of different dental healthcare settings where a risk management plan was implemented. Materials and methods: In a Hospital Odontostomatology Clinic (HOC) and three Private Dental Clinics (PDCs) housing 13 and six dental units (DUs), respectively, an assessment checklist was applied to evaluate staff compliance with guideline recommendations. DUWLs microbial parameters were investigated before and after the application of corrective actions. Results: In the HOC a poor adherence to good practices was demonstrated, whereas protocols were carefully applied in PDCs. L. pneumophila sg 2–15 was isolated in 31% (4/13) and 33% (2/6) of DUs in HOC and PDCs, respectively, mainly from handpieces (32%, 6/19) with counts >102 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/L), often associated with P. aeruginosa (68%, 13/19). The shock disinfection with 3% v/v hydrogen peroxide (HP) showed a limited effect, with a recolonization period of about 4 weeks. Legionella was eradicated only after 6% v/v HP shock disinfection and filters-installation, whilst P. aeruginosa after the third shock disinfection with a solution of 4% v/v HP and biodegradable surfactants. Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the presence and persistence of microbial contamination within the DUWLs, which required strict adherence to control measures and the choice of effective disinfectants.
2020
Tuvo, B.; Totaro, M.; Cristina, M. L.; Spagnolo, A. M.; Cave, D. D.; Profeti, S.; Baggiani, A.; Privitera, G.; Casini, B.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
pathogens-09-00305.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione finale editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 409.3 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
409.3 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/1133192
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 29
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 24
social impact