口腔牙椅水路细菌污染现状调查及水冲洗法降低细菌污染程度的应用研究

王桂芹; 章洁; 楼晶; 江嫚; 徐国超

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002027

口腔牙椅水路细菌污染现状调查及水冲洗法降低细菌污染程度的应用研究

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.002027

浙江医院口腔科，浙江杭州 310000

基金项目:

浙江省医药卫生科技计划项目 2017KY187

详细信息

通讯作者:
徐国超, E-mail: x_meixiaohu@126.com

中图分类号: R197.39
计量
- 文章访问数: 330
- HTML全文浏览量: 66
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-05-08
- 网络出版日期: 2022-02-16

Investigation of bacterial contamination and disinfection level in oral dental chair waterway and application of flushing method in reducing bacterial contamination

Department of Stomatology, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310000, China

摘要

摘要: 目的调查分析口腔牙椅水路细菌污染现状以及水冲洗法降低细菌污染程度的应用效果。方法选择2016年4月—2020年1月杭州市23家口腔医疗机构112台口腔牙椅纳入研究，依据医疗机构规模分为A(52台)、B(34台)、C(26台)3组。分别采样口腔牙椅水路进行细菌培养，调查水路细菌污染现状；采用水冲洗法实施牙椅水道消毒，再进行第二次水路采样检测，对比两次采样水道内细菌数量的变化情况。结果口腔牙椅医用水源水总体超标率为39.13%(9/23)，其中A组无污染，C组超标率60.00%(6/10)高于B组37.50%(3/8)，χ²=8.005，P=0.012。高速手机水污染总体超标率为56.25%(63/112)，其中C组水污染超标率为92.31%(24/26)，均显著高于B组73.53%(25/34)、A组26.92%(14/52)，χ²=14.927、29.661，均P＜0.001；三用枪水污染总体超标率为68.75%(77/112)，其中C组水污染超标率为96.15%(25/26)，均显著高于B组82.35%(28/34)、A组46.15%(24/52)，均P＜0.001。实施水冲洗法后，3组口腔牙椅水路细菌总数均显著下降到标准范围以内，且A组口腔牙椅水路细菌总数显著低于B、C组(均P＜0.05)。结论口腔牙椅水路细菌污染情况普遍较为严重，且医疗机构规模越小，牙椅水路污染情况越严重，应当引起足够重视；而水冲洗法能够有效清理口腔牙椅水路内的细菌及微生物，显著降低水路细菌污染程度，提高水路质量。
- 口腔牙椅水路 /
- 细菌污染 /
- 消毒 /
- 水冲洗法 /
- 水质质量
Abstract: Objective To investigate and analyse the current status of bacterial contamination in oral dental chair waterway, disinfection levels and the effectiveness of water flushing methods in reducing bacterial contamination. Methods A total of 112 dental chairs from 23 dental institutions in Hangzhou from April 2016 to January 2020 were selected as the subjects of this study. They were divided into three groups according to the scale of medical institutions: A (52 units), B (34 units) and C (26 units). The oral dental chair waterway was sampled for bacterial culture, and the current situation of bacterial contamination in the waterway was investigated. The flushing method was used to disinfect the dental chair waterway, and then a second waterway sampling test was performed to compare the changes in the number of bacteria in the waterway between the two samples. Results The overall over-standard rate of dental water for dental chairs was 39.13% (9/23), with group A having no water pollution, and the over-standard rate of group C was 60.00% (6/10), which was higher than that of group B (37.50%, 3/8), χ²=8.005, P=0.012. The overall rate of high-speed mobile phone water pollution was 56.25% (63/112). The rate of water pollution in group C was 92.31% (24/26), which was significantly higher than that in group B (73.53%, 25/34) and group A (26.92%, 14/52). The difference was statistically significant (χ²=14.927, 29.661, all P < 0.001). The overall rate of water pollution exceeding three-use guns was 68.75% (77/112), amongst which the rate of water pollution in group C (96.15%, 25/26) was significantly higher than that in group B (82.35%, 28/34) and group A (46.15%, 24/52, all P < 0.001). After the water washing method was implemented, the total number of oral dental chair waterway bacteria in the three groups was significantly reduced to within the standard range, and the total oral dental chair waterway bacteria in group A were significantly lower than those in groups B and C (all P < 0.05). Conclusion Bacterial contamination of dental waterways is a serious matter, and the smaller the size of the medical institution, the more serious the pollution of the dental chair waterway, which should be paid enough attention. Flushing can effectively clean the bacteria and microorganisms in the dental chair waterway, significantly reduce the degree of bacterial pollution in the waterway and improve the quality of the waterway, which is worthy of active application and promotion.
- Oral dental chair waterway /
- Bacterial contamination /
- Disinfection /
- Flushing method /
- Water quality

HTML全文

表 1 口腔牙椅水路的细菌污染情况(cfu/mL)

组别	样本数(医疗机构)	水源水				样本数(台数)	高速手机水				样本数(台数)	三用枪水
组别	样本数(医疗机构)	最低值	最高值	超标数	超标率(%)	样本数(台数)	最低值	最高值	超标数	超标率(%)	样本数(台数)	最低值	最高值	超标数	超标率(%)
A组	5	-	58	0	0.00	52	-	21 500	14	26.92	52	-	33 100	24	46.15
B组	8	-	8 480	3	37.50^a	34	-	63 800	25	73.53^a	34	-	49 920	28	82.35^a
C组	10	-	12 820	6	60.00^ab	26	-	89 600	24	92.31^ab	26	-	73 300	25	96.15^ab
注：“-”代表检测不出细菌数。3组水源水超标率比较，χ²=5.012，P=0.032；3组高速手机水超标率比较，χ²=10.226，P=0.013；3组三用枪水超标率比较，χ²=14.504，P=0.002。与A组比较，^aP＜0.05；与B组比较，^bP＜0.05；两两比较校正P=0.017。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 3组水冲洗前后口腔牙椅水路细菌总数比较(x±s，cfu/mL)

组别	样本数	高速手机水				三用枪水
组别	样本数	实施前	实施后	t值	P值	实施前	实施后	t值	P值
A组	52	15 850.25±2 321.55	45.25±8.25	49.093	＜0.001	20 845.36±1 034.12	31.38±5.08	145.138	＜0.001
B组	34	59 670.44±2 631.13^a	79.51±9.04^a	132.061	＜0.001	38 446.97±2 087.19^a	58.86±3.99^a	107.244	＜0.001
C组	26	74 472.83±4 966.06^ab	82.45±7.94^ab	76.382	＜0.001	65 965.07±4 277.91^ab	69.16±8.11^ab	78.544	＜0.001
F值		3 578.254	248.439			2 945.369	468.857
P值		＜0.001	＜0.001			＜0.001	＜0.001
注：与A组比较，^aP＜0.05；与B组比较，^bP＜0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	徐平英, 周军, 伍晓, 等. 碘离子水路净化系统对牙椅水路消毒的研究[J]. 齐齐哈尔医学院学报, 2019, 40(2): 225-226. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1256.2019.02.042
[2]	李娜, 胡妮娅, 王斌, 等. 南昌市口腔综合治疗台水路污染状况调查及干预效果分析[J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2017, 34(7): 637-639, 642. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGXD201707011.htm
[3]	赵恒越, 何文娟, 周颖, 等. 3种方法消毒口腔科综合治疗台水路的效果比较[J]. 中国农村卫生, 2019, 11(1): 64-65. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-361X.2019.01.035
[4]	PERON D, BERGAMO A, PRATES R, et al. Photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy has an overt killing effect on periodontal pathogens?A systematic review of experimental studies[J]. Laser Med Sci, 2019, 34(8): 1527-1534. doi: 10.1007/s10103-019-02806-4
[5]	天津市市场和质量监督管理委员会. 《口腔综合治疗台用水微生物标准》[S]. DB12/T 804-2018.
[6]	石春红, 周丽. 口腔综合治疗台水路污染规范化综合治理效果调查研究[J]. 新疆医科大学学报, 2018, 41(11): 1427-1428, 1432. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5551.2018.11.026
[7]	程鲁晋, 阿勒腾古丽·哈森拜, 陈辛, 等. 某三甲医院口腔综合治疗台水路需氧菌污染状况调查[J]. 新疆医科大学学报, 2018, 41(9): 1171-1174, 1177. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-5551.2018.09.027
[8]	MALMBERG L, HÄGG E, BJÖRKNER A E, et al. Endodontic infection control routines among general dental practitioners in Sweden and Norway: A questionnaire survey[J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 2019, 77(6): 434-438. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2019.1584330
[9]	陈叶俊. 两种消毒方法对牙椅左侧扶手物表消毒效果的研究[J]. 护理实践与研究, 2016, 13(7): 117-118. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9676.2016.07.057
[10]	陈绍山, 柳志文. 口腔综合治疗台水路污染现状和消毒的研究进展[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2016, 32(9): 571-573. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1634.2016.09.021
[11]	戴轶, 贾丽娜, 肖婷. 护理专案在改善口腔综合治疗台水路污染状况的应用效果[J]. 全科护理, 2018, 16(17): 2111-2113. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JTHS201817024.htm
[12]	金婉姝, 廖会玲. 2017—2018年重庆市某口腔医院正畸科诊疗用水、正畸器械及医务人员卫生手污染状况[J]. 职业与健康, 2019, 35(9): 1256-1259. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZYJK201909027.htm
[13]	倪玲美, 廖丹, 王芳, 等. 医院牙科综合治疗台水路微生物污染和感染防控研究进展[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2018, 28(4): 636-640. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHYY201804041.htm
[14]	王琛, 廖馨, 王妍婷, 等. 四种消毒剂应用于DUWLs微生物污染控制的生物安全性评价[J]. 口腔医学, 2019, 39(7): 596-600.
[15]	王绍鑫, 王磊, 秦晓东. 美国医疗机构口腔综合治疗台水路消毒管理技术规范研究进展[J]. 实用预防医学, 2019, 26(10): 1278-1281. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-3110.2019.10.035
[16]	HASEGAWA T, TAKENAKA S J, WAKAMATSU R, et al. A horizontal sequential cutting method to estimate the effectiveness of dentin disinfection by using confocal laser scanning microscopy[J]. J Endod, 2019, 45(9): 1142-1147. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.06.004
[17]	刘晓康, 董非, 杨彬, 等. 微酸性电解水对口腔综合治疗台水路消毒效果研究[J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2019, 36(2): 104-106. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGXD201902009.htm
[18]	谭晓娟, 胡欣. 口腔综合治疗台水路微生物污染及防治研究现状[J]. 全科口腔医学电子杂志, 2019, 6(26): 15-16. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-QKKQ201926008.htm
[19]	夏娴, 宋丹宁, 翁思源, 等. 微酸性次氯酸水气锤脉冲消毒方法对口腔综合治疗台水路消毒效果的研究[J]. 中国消毒学杂志, 2019, 36(10): 735-737, 740. doi: 10.11726/j.issn.1001-7658.2019.10.005
[20]	姚琴, 邓友芳, 张朝霞, 等. 牙科水道细菌污染现状调查及水冲洗法对降低水道内菌落数量的效果[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2019, 29(6): 945-948. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZHYY201906035.htm