Umeå University's logo

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the establishment of an aseptic endodontic operative field in general dentistry by assessing general dentists’ ability to reduce the amount of contamination to a non-cultivable level, and to compare the operative field asepsis at a general dentistry clinic with that at an endodontic specialist clinic.

Materials and Methods: A total of 353 teeth were included in the study (153 in general dentistry, 200 at the specialist clinic). After isolation, control samples were taken, the operative fields disinfected with 30% hydrogen peroxide (1 min) followed by 5% iodine tincture or.5% chlorhexidine solution. Samples were collected from the access cavity area and buccal area, placed in a fluid thioglycolate medium, incubated (37°, 7 d), evaluated for growth/non-growth.

Results: Significantly more contamination was observed at the general dentistry clinic (31.6%, 95/301), than at the endodontic specialist clinic (7.0%, 27/386) (p <.001). In general dentistry, significantly more positive samples were collected in the buccal area than in the occlusal area. Significantly more positive samples were collected when the chlorhexidine protocol had been used, both in general dentistry (p <.001) and at the specialist clinic (p =.028).

Conclusions: The result from this study shows insufficient endodontic aseptic control in general dentistry. At the specialist clinic, both disinfection protocols were able to reduce the amount of microorganisms to a non-cultivable level. The observed difference between the protocols may not reflect a true difference in the effectiveness of the antimicrobial solutions, as confounding factors may have contributed to the result.