Dental Burs: Assessment of Cutting-Efficiency and Awareness of Cleansing Protocols
Objectives: To investigate the awareness of dental-health-practioners towards dental-burs maintenance and to study the effect of different maintenance protocols on the efficacy/efficiency of both carbide and diamond burs.
Methods: A paper based questionnaire composed of 12 questions was formulated to evaluate the level of awareness towards dental-burs efficiency. The international recommended maintenance protocol and the currently used maintenance protocols was distributed. An analysis of the bur efficiency of diamond/carbide burs was carried out using 240 teeth. The teeth were randomized into two groups; course Diamond Stones SF-21 (DS) and #245 straight Carbide Burs (CB). Each group was divided into 4 subgroups (30 teeth/subgroup). Group 1: without any disinfection protocol; group 2: ultrasonic cleaning and a cleaning agent (SONICA®), then autoclaved; group 3 cleaning with an alcohol gauze and then autoclaved; group 4: cleaning with a metal bur brush followed by ultrasonic cleaning and then autoclaved. A digital thermometer was inserted through the root into the pulp chamber to record thermal changes. The dental-burs were used for 30 cavity preparations or until it breaks. Between each cavity preparation, the cutting instrument was sterilized according to their group protocol. Mann-Whitney test statistical analysis was used.
Results: The majority of the participants (93%) agreed that dental burs can cause cross contamination or infection, but only 80% are familiar with international protocol recommended for dental-burs cleaning/disinfection/sterilization. Proper dental-bur maintenance protocol (Brushing+ultrasonic+autoclave) does not decrease bur efficiency. There was a significant difference in the average heat generated between the two types of dental burs (p=0.05), 2.17°C for diamond burs and 1.36°C for carbide burs. Ultrasonic cleaning significantly reduced heat generated (p=0.05), while heat generated was significantly increased without ultrasonic cleaning (p=0.05).
Conclusions: Dental-burs efficiency is overestimated by dental health practitioners. More effort should be directed towards increasing awareness about dental-burs efficiency and maintenance protocols of rotatory instruments.
|Journal||95th General Session & Exhibition of the IADR, 46th Annual Meeting of the AADR, 41st Annual Meeting of the CADR|