The Chicken-Egg Dilemma: Legionnaires' Disease and Retrograde Contamination of Dental Unit Waterlines

Disinfection methods of dental unit waterlines contamination: a systematic review

Background. Severe contamination of dental unit waterlines was found in healthcare settings. The benefits of decontamination methods are controversial. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate disinfection methods in contamination control of dental unit waterlines.Methods. The terms 'dental unit waterline(s) or DUWL(s) or dental unit water line(s)' were searched through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science and Scopusup to 31 May 2021. The DUWLs' output water was incubated on R2A agar at 20-28 °C for 5-7 days to evaluate heterotrophic mesophilic bacteria. The risk of bias was evaluated by a modified Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.Results. Eighteen papers from the literature were included. One study indicated that water supply played a crucial role in disinfecting DUWLs. Three studies indicated that flushing decreased bacteria counts but did not meet the American CDC standard (500 c.f.u. ml^-1). All chlorine- and peroxide-containing disinfectants except sodium hypochlorite in one of 15 studies as well as three mouthrinses and citrus botanical extract achieved the standard (≤500 c.f.u. ml^-1). The included studies were of low (1/18), moderate (6/18) and high (11/18) quality.Conclusion. Independent water reservoirs are recommended for disinfecting DUWLs using distilled water. Flushing DUWLs should be combined with disinfections. Nearly all the chlorine-, chlorhexidine- and peroxide-containing disinfectants, mouthrinses and citrus botanical extract meet the standard for disinfecting DUWLs. Alkaline peroxide would lead to tube blockage in the DUWLs. Regularly changing disinfectants can reduce the risk of occurrence of disinfectant-resistant strains of microbes.

Dental deaths in Italy as reported by online press articles

OBJECTIVES

Mortality on the dental chair is a rare and underreported event. This study aimed to identify all deaths that occurred during dental procedures in Italy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Internet archives looking for patients who died before, during, or after a dental procedure in Italy from 1990 to 2019.

RESULTS

All the 36 identified fatal events were reported by national or regional newspapers, and none was reported by scientific databases. Interestingly, no cases regarding patients ≤16 years old were found and there was no variation in the number of reported deaths over the years. Most of the cases (n = 29) occurred in out-of-hospital private dental offices. Tooth extraction represented the most frequent culprit operation (39%), while myocardial infarction (28%) was the leading cause of death, followed by cardiac arrest (25%), allergies (11%), and infections (8%). In four cases, death was preprocedural, in 10 intraprocedural and in 21 postprocedural. In 17 cases, a temporal association between injection of anesthesia/sedation and death was observed.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report on Italian dental procedure-related deaths. Most of these deaths were only temporally associated with a dental procedure and could not to be attributed to malpractice.

Cross-transmission in the Dental Office: Does This Make You Ill?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recently, numerous scientific publications were published which shed new light on the possible risks of infection for dental healthcare workers and their patients. This review aimed to provide the latest insights in the relative risks of transmission of (pathogenic) micro-organisms in the dental office.

RECENT FINDINGS

Of all different routes of micro-organism transmission during or immediately after dental treatment (via direct contact/via blood-blood contact/via dental unit water and aerosols), evidence of transmission is available. However, the recent results put the risks in perspective; infections related to the dental office are most likely when infection control measures are not followed meticulously.

SUMMARY

The risk for transmission of pathogens in a dental office resulting in an infectious disease is still unknown; it seems to be limited in developed countries but it cannot be considered negligible. Therefore, maintaining high standards of infection preventive measures is of high importance for dental healthcare workers to avoid infectious diseases due to cross-contamination.

Occupational risk for Legionella infection among dental healthcare workers: meta-analysis in occupational epidemiology

OBJECTIVE

The occupational risk for Legionella infection among dental healthcare workers (DHCWs) is conjectured because of the risk of routine inhalation of potentially contaminated aerosols produced by the dental instruments. Nevertheless, occupational epidemiology studies are contrasting. This meta-analysis assessed the level of scientific evidence regarding the relative occupational risk for Legionella infection among DHCWs.

METHODS

Literature search was performed without time and language restrictions, using broad data banks (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, GOOGLE Scholar) and generic keywords ('legionella' AND 'dent*'). Analytical cross-sectional studies comparing prevalence of high serum Legionella antibody levels in DHCWs and occupationally unexposed individuals were considered. The relative occupational risk was assessed through prevalence ratio (PR) with 95% CI. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran's Q test) and was used to choose the meta-analytic method. Study quality (modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and publication bias (Begg and Mazumdar's test, Egger and colleagues' test, trim and fill R₀ method) were assessed formally and considered for the sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis to study inclusion, subgroup analyses (dental staff categories; publication year, before vs after 1998, ie, 5 years after the release by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the infection control guidelines in dental healthcare setting) were performed.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included (2232 DHCWs, 1172 occupationally unexposed individuals). No evidence of publication bias was detected. The pooled PR estimate was statistically non-significant at 95% level (1.7; 95% CI 0.8 to 3.2), study-quality adjustment did not change the PR considerably (PR, 1.5; 95% CI 0.5 to 4.1). PR was statistically significant before 1998 and no longer significant after 1998. Subgroup analysis according to DHCW categories was inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no scientific evidence that DHCWs are at high occupational risk. The differences between former and recent studies could be due to different characteristics of municipal water systems and the infection control guideline dissemination.

Legionellosis acquired through a dental unit: a case study

In 2012, an elderly immunocompromised man died from legionellosis at a hospital in Uppsala, Sweden. The patient had visited a dental ward at the hospital during the incubation period. Legionella spp. at a concentration of 2000 colony-forming units/L were isolated from the cupfiller outlet providing water for oral rinsing. Isolates from the patient and the dental unit were Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1, subgroup Knoxville and ST9. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole-genome sequencing strongly suggested that the isolates were of common origin. This report presents one of few documented cases of legionellosis acquired through a dental unit.