不同措施控制口腔综合治疗台交叉感染的效果比较

The comparison of different methods in controlling cross infection in dental units

目的探讨控制口腔综合治疗台(DU)手接触部位交叉感染的有效措施。方法抽取门诊DU 10张,随机分为实验组和对照组,每组各5张。实验组采用消毒避污法,对照组采用擦拭消毒法控制交叉感染。每组牙椅控感前后各随机采样30次,比较两组控感前后细菌菌落数和操作时间、成本核算的差异。结果两种措施均能有效控制交叉感染,两组间控感前菌落数(t=-0.775,P=0.338)、控感后菌落数(t=0.383,P=0.845)、成本核算(t=-1.726,P=0.421)间差异均无统计学意义。但实验组操作时间明显比对照组长,差异有统计学意义(t=24.190,P=0.000)。结论消毒避污法和擦拭消毒法均能有效控制DU手接触部位交叉感染,消毒避污法能减少消毒剂气溶胶对空气的二次污染,擦拭消毒法更快捷省时。

Objective To investigate the effective methods in controlling cross infection of the hand contact area of dental units. Methods Ten dental units are randomly selected in outpatient department. The dental units are randomly divided into an experiment group and a control group,and each group has 5 chairs. Sterilization and disposable covers are used in the experiment group. Sterilization only is used in control group. Thirty samples are randomly taken in each group before and after infection control. The difference of bacteria colony number,operation time and cost effectiveness are compared between 2 groups before and after infection control. Results Both methods can effectively control cross infection. The comparisons between control group and test group in bacteria colony number before cross infection control（t=-0.775,P=0.338）,bacteria colony number after cross infection control（t=0.383,P=0.845） and cost accounting （t =-1.726,P = 0.421） were not statistically significant. The operation time of experiment group is longer than the control group（t=24.190,P=0.000）,and it′s of statistical difference. Conclusions Both methods can control the cross infection in the hand contact area of dental units. Sterilization and disposable covers method can reduce the secondary pollution of aerosol. The sterilization method is more time saving and more convenient.