Defective Plastic Infection-Control Barriers and Faulty Technique may Cause PSP Plate Contamination Used in Digital Intraoral Radiography

A pilot study of the effects of a vacuum sealing barrier method for photostimulable phosphor plates regarding plate damage and prevention of microbiologic cross-contamination

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new sealing method for preventing cross-contamination of photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates.

STUDY DESIGN

Twelve new PSP plates were divided into 3 groups (PSP-a, PSP-b, and PSP- c) and placed in 3 different barriers (2 different brands of envelopes and a vacuum sealing method). All plates were exposed to X-rays with an aluminum step wedge, and the images were evaluated for the presence of any artifacts. After radiography, the PSP plates were removed from the barriers. The barriers and the PSP plates were disinfected and culture performed to assess any microorganism burden. Subsequently, the PSP plates were coated again with all barriers. The barriers were then contaminated and microbiologic specimens were collected. Subsequently, the barriers were wiped with alcohol. The PSP plates were removed, and microbiologic specimens were obtained.

RESULTS

No artifacts were recorded on the radiographic images on the sensors in any group. Microorganisms were detected on the PSP plates placed in envelopes. No colonization of microorganisms was detected on the vacuum sealed PSP plates.

CONCLUSIONS

The new vacuum-sealing method may be useful in preventing cross-contamination of PSP plates during radiographic procedures.

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

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.