不同消毒方法对口腔科手机消毒效果的比较  

COMPARISON OF EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT DISINFECTION METHODS IN DISINFECTION OF STOMATOLOGICAL HANDPIECE

作　　者：薛宁一 潘晓春[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海市闸北区疾病预防控制中心,上海200072

出　　处：《中国消毒学杂志》2006年第4期321-323,共3页Chinese Journal of Disinfection

摘　　要：为了比较不同消毒方法对医疗机构口腔科手机消毒效果,采用现场采样检测方法,对紫外线照射法、消毒剂擦拭法和压力蒸汽灭菌法消毒牙钻手机的效果进行了观察。结果,使用高强度紫外线照射消毒和消毒剂擦拭消毒,牙钻手机上细菌总数超标率分别为18.18%和9.09%;使用压力蒸汽灭菌处理,牙钻手机全部无菌生长;3种消毒方法消毒后的牙钻手机上均未检出金黄色葡萄球菌、大肠菌群和HBsAg均阴性。压力蒸汽灭菌处理对牙钻手机转速具有一定影响。结论,紫外线照射法和消毒剂擦拭法对牙钻手机消毒效果较差,压力蒸汽灭菌法可使牙钻手机达到灭菌要求,但其对牙钻手机有一定损坏作用。In order to compare the disinfection efficacy of different disinfection methods in disinfection of stomatological handpiece in medical institutions, field sampling examination method was used to observe the efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation, disinfectant wiping and autoclaving in disinfection of toothdrill handpiece. Results： After disinfection with high - intensity ultraviolet irradiation and wiping with disinfectant, the rates of total bacterial count on toothdrill handpiece exceeding the allowable limit were 18.18% and 9.09% respectively. When autoclaving was used, no bacteria grew on all toothdrill handpieces. After disinfection with the 3 disinfection methods, no Staphylococcus aureus and eoligroup were detected and HBsAg was negative on toothdrill handpieees. Autoclaving had certain influence on rotational speed of toothdrill handpiece. Conclusion： The efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation method and disinfectant wiping method in disinfecting toothdrill handpiece is relatively poor, while autoclaving can fulfil the requirement of sterilization of toothdrill handpiece, but it has certain damaging effect on toothdrill handpiece.

关 键 词：牙钻手机 消毒 紫外线 压力蒸汽 

分 类 号：R187.2[医药卫生—流行病学]