i

Efficacies of E2O Dental Waterline Treatment and a 2% hydrogen peroxide solution as dental unit waterline disinfectants

PHRR220613-004756

A comparison of the efficacies between E2O Dental Waterline Treatment and a homemade cost-effective 2% hydrogen peroxide solution as dental unit waterline disinfectants in the UP College of Dentistry Clinics

ABSTRACT

TITLE: A comparison of the efficacies between E2O Dental Waterline Treatment and a homemade cost-effective 2% hydrogen peroxide solution as dental unit waterline disinfectants in the UP College of Dentistry Clinics

 

INTRODUCTION: The dental unit waterline (DUWL) is a source of infection in dental clinics that must be controlled by chemical or non-chemical means. Multiple studies have proven that hydrogen peroxide disinfectants lower bacterial counts in DUWLs.

 

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the efficacies between E2O, a branded DUWL cleaner, and a homemade cost-effective solution of 2% hydrogen peroxide in reducing the DUWL heterotrophic bacterial counts of the clinical sections in the UP College of Dentistry (UPCD).

 

METHODS: Six randomly selected dental units and their DUWLs from the three sections (n=18) of the UPCD clinics were divided into two groups, E2O Treatment and 2% Hydrogen peroxide solution. The DUWLs were flushed for 2 minutes with distilled water and pre-test samples were collected. E2O and the 2% hydrogen peroxide solutions were then run through the DUWLs, left overnight, and collected the next day as post-test samples. Samples were spread-plated on R2A agar, incubated at 30±2ºC for 7 days, and heterotrophic bacterial counts were determined. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum non-parametric test was used to determine if the disinfectants were able to reduce bacterial counts to the Centers of Disease Control drinking water standard of ≤500 CFU/mL.

 

RESULTS: E2O and hydrogen peroxide had mean bacterial count reductions of 53% and 45.53% respectively with mean post-test bacterial counts of 1,401 CFU/mL and 1,616 CFU/mL respectively.

 

CONCLUSION: It is inconclusive to state that E2O Dental Waterline treatment is more efficacious than the homemade cost-effective 2% hydrogen peroxide solution or vice versa. More research is recommended to conclude that these cleaners can reduce bacteria counts in DUWLs when used regularly.

 

KEYWORDS: dental unit water lines (DUWL), hydrogen peroxide, E2O dental waterline treatment, colony forming units (CFU)

Regime Classification Priority
2017 - 2022 Research to enhance and extend healthy lives Oral health
Start Date Duration in Months Target Completion Date Actual Completion Date
2017-01-23 65 2022-06-23 2022-06-08

Completed

Institution Classification Region LTO #
University of the Philippines - Manila, College of Dentistry Public Higher Education Institution - State Universities and Colleges NCR
Institution Region
Self-funded None
Name E-Mail Institution and Institution Address
Kerwin Lim kplim@up.edu.ph University of the Philippines Manila College of Dentistry Pedro Gil St. Cor Taft Ave, Ermita, Manila, 1000
Name E-Mail Institution and Institution Address
Kerwin Lim kplim@up.edu.ph University of the Philippines Manila College of Dentistry Pedro Gil St. Cor Taft Ave, Ermita, Manila, 1000
Name Expertise Affiliation
Kerwin Poblete Lim Dentistry University of the Philippines - Manila, College of Dentistry
Marco S Bermejo Dentistry University of the Philippines - Manila, College of Dentistry
Michael Antonio F. Mendoza Community Dentistry, Health Policy Studies University of the Philippines - Manila, College of Dentistry
Wilgem O Algarne Dentistry College of Dentistry, University if the Philippines Manila

Bacterial level of Water within Dental Unit Waterlines before and after treatment of E2O Dental Waterline Treatment and a homemade cost effective 2% hydrogen peroxide solution.

Of the 18 DUWLs tested, 12 of the DUWLs tested had lower counts after treatment while 6 Waterlines had increased heterotrophic plate counts after treatment. For the E2O treatment, the bacterial counts were only lowered to an average of 1401 CFU/mL and a median of 1430 CFU/mL. For the 2% hydrogen peroxide solution, the counts were lowered to an average of 1616 CFU/mL and to a median of 920 CFU/mL. For E2O Dental Waterline Treatment, at 0.05 level of significance, there is enough evidence to say that the median heterotrophic bacterial counts of the water in the dental unit waterlines are significantly different before and after treatment of E2O Dental Waterline treatment (P = 0.0378 for Mann-Whitney test).  However, when comparing the ability of both cleaners to lessen bacterial counts of ≤500 CFU/mL, both cleaners were not able to achieve an average of ≤500 CFU/mL.  There is not enough evidence to say that the median microbial counts of the water in the dental unit waterlines are different between the 2% hydrogen peroxide solution and E2O Dental Waterline Treatment (P > 0.05 for Mann Whitney Test).

Unspecified

Completed

Non-clinical Studies

©2022 HERDIN PLUS. All rights reserved. | Contact Us | Keep up to date