Opportunistic bacteria in dental unit waterlines: assessment and characteristics

Managing dental unit waterlines: a quality improvement programme

The presence of bacterial biofilms within dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) can cause secondary bacterial infections in immunocompromised patients. As a result, the management of biofilms within waterlines has always concerned medical and dental professionals. In February 2020, an internal audit identified the high bacterial counts within the DUWLs at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi and this paper discusses a pragmatic approach to improving the water quality of DUWLs.

A three-person committee was developed and the area for improvement was identified as the contaminated DUWLs. Distilled water samples from two dental units were first assessed as baseline in July 2020. The process changes were then implemented which included daily flushing of the dental unit waterlines and ‘shock treatment’ using A-dec ICX capsules. Subsequently, the units were tested after intervention on 24 August 2020 and water from all 16 dental units assessed on 20 November 2020 and again on 22 April 2021.

The samples from all the dental units assessed showed marked reduction in bacterial counts and compliance with the Centers for Disease Control guidelines after intervention. All the dental units showed minimal bacterial counts; however, a slightly low pH was noted in the final round of water testing.

DUWLs are heavily contaminated with microbes and pose potential risk both to the patient as well as the DHCPs. This study suggests that chemical disinfection using A-dec ICX tablets and flushing as an effective method of reducing the bacterial load in DUWLs.

Microbiological Evaluation of Water Used in Dental Units

In modern dentistry, dental units are used for the treatment of patients’ teeth, and they need water to operate. Water circulates in a closed vessel system and finally reaches the mucous membranes of the patient as well as the dentist themselves. Therefore, the microbiological safety of this water should be a priority for physicians. This study aims to identify and determine the microbial count, expressed in CFU/mL, in water samples from various parts of the dental unit that are in direct contact with the patient. Thirty-four dental units located in dentistry rooms were analysed. The dentistry rooms were divided into three categories: surgical, conservative, and periodontal. It was found that in surgical rooms, the bacterial count was 1464.76 CFU/mL, and the most common bacterium was Staphylococcus pasteuri—23.88% of the total bacteria identified. In dentistry rooms where conservative treatments were applied, the average bacterial concentration was 8208.35 CFU/mL, and the most common bacterium was Ralsonia pickettii (26.31%). The periodontal rooms were also dominated by R. pickettii (45.13%), and the average bacterial concentration was 8743.08 CFU/mL. Fungi were also detected. Rhodotorula spp., Alternaria spp., and Candida parapsilosis were found to be the most common bacteria which are potentially harmful. This study indicates the need for effective decontamination of the water that is used in dental units and for constant monitoring of the level of contaminants present in the closed vessel system.

An Assessment of the Bacterial Diversity found in Dental Unit Waterlines using the Illumina MiSeq

Water from the waterlines of dental units is often contaminated with bacteria but there have been few studies accurately assessing the diversity of these bacterial populations. The aim of our study was to assess the bacterial diversity present in water collected from dental unit waterlines using the Illumina MiSeq. Water was collected from two separate dental units located in a dental hospital and two units found in two separate private clinics in Gangneung-si, Korea. From the four water samples that were analyzed, a total of 233 bacterial genera were identified. The most abundant genera were Sphingomonas (25%), Halomonas (20%), Reyranella (8%), and Novosphingobium (6%). Halomonas was more prevalent in the two dental units located at the dental hospital, while Reyranella and Sphingomonas were more commonly found in the private dental clinics. Only 19 of the 233 identified genera were common between water samples from all dental units. Opportunistic pathogens were shown to account for 7.7% of the total bacterial genera identified. Our results have demonstrated that there is a wide assortment of bacterial genera present in dental unit waterlines.

Prevention and Control of Legionella and Pseudomonas spp. Colonization in Dental Units

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.

Three key factors influencing the bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines: a 6-year survey from 2012 to 2017

BACKGROUND

The contaminated output water from dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) is a potential risk to both patients and dental personnel who are frequently exposed to this water or aerosols.

AIM

The purpose was to evaluate the contamination level and prevalence of bacteria in the output water of DUWLs, and to identify key factors to provide technical support for formulating relevant policies.

METHODS

We developed a special sampling connector designed for collecting dental handpiece output water and a measurement device to assess retraction of a dental chair unit (DCU). Output water from dental handpieces and air/water syringes were collected as representative of DUWLs. Water samples were tested with reference to China's national standard.

FINDINGS

From 2012 to 2017, 318 DCUs were randomly selected from 64 hospitals in Tianjin, China. Of these DCUs, 78.93% had no disinfection to prevent DUWL contamination. Three-hundred and forty-three (56.14%) samples complied with the guidelines on DUWL output water. The highest concentration of bacteria was 1.8 × 10⁶  colony-forming units (CFUs)/mL. The three key factors of influence were as follows: daily or weekly disinfection of DUWLs; water supply source being hospital self-made purified water or purchased purified bottled water; and DCU with a valid anti-retraction valve. Potential infectious agents, including Bacillus cereus, Burkholderia cepacia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, were isolated.

CONCLUSION

There was a high rate of contamination in DUWLs. This highlights the need to develop national standards. There is a need to disinfect the DUWLs periodically and use a cleaner source of water; more attention should be paid to the efficacy of DCU anti-retraction valves.

Evaluation of bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines and use of a newly designed measurement device to assess retraction of a dental chair unit

INTRODUCTION

Dental unit waterline (DUWL) output water is delivered through instruments of a dental chair unit (DCU) to irrigate and cool teeth. However, these waterlines can be heavily contaminated with bacteria.

AIM

The purpose of the present study was to assess retraction and investigate the contamination level and prevalence of bacteria in DUWL output water.

METHODS

Fifty-eight DCUs were randomly selected from 30 hospitals in 10 districts of Tianjin, one of the four special municipalities of China. A unique sampling connector was used in place of the dental handpiece to collect water samples. Evaluation of retraction was accomplished using a retraction measurement device designed in accordance with the International Standard ISO 7494-2:2015(E).

RESULTS

A total of 263 water samples were collected, and the highest concentration of bacteria [1.8 × 10(6) colony-forming units (CFU)/mL] was found in the handpiece group. Thirty (51.72%) water samples in the handpiece group and 21 (36.21%) in the air/water syringe groups were cultured, yielding colony counts of > 500 CFU/mL. Potential infectious agents, such as Bacillus cereus, Kocuria kristinae and Pseudomonas fluorescens, were isolated from the water samples. Thirty (51.72%) DCUs failed the retraction evaluation. There was a significant, positive correlation (P < 0.05) between the concentration of bacteria in the water sample and the retracted volume.

CONCLUSION

It is of paramount importance to increase compliance with the standards for controlling DUWL contamination. Routine microbial monitoring and evaluation of retraction are necessary to provide high-quality water for use in dental treatment.

Effect of different disinfection protocols on microbial and biofilm contamination of dental unit waterlines in community dental practices

Output water from dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) may be a potential source of infection for both dental healthcare staff and patients. This study compared the efficacy of different disinfection methods with regard to the water quality and the presence of biofilm in DUWLs. Five dental units operating in a public dental health care setting were selected. The control dental unit had no disinfection system; two were disinfected intermittently with peracetic acid/hydrogen peroxide 0.26% and two underwent continuous disinfection with hydrogen peroxide/silver ions (0.02%) and stabilized chlorine dioxide (0.22%), respectively. After three months of applying the disinfection protocols, continuous disinfection systems were more effective than intermittent systems in reducing the microbial contamination of the water, allowing compliance with the CDC guidelines and the European Council regulatory thresholds for drinking water. P. aeruginosa, Legionella spp, sulphite-reducing Clostridium spores, S. aureus and β-haemolytic streptococci were also absent from units treated with continuous disinfection. The biofilm covering the DUWLs was more extensive, thicker and more friable in the intermittent disinfection dental units than in those with continuous disinfection. Overall, the findings showed that the products used for continuous disinfection of dental unit waterlines showed statistically better results than the intermittent treatment products under the study conditions.