Month: May 2020

Digital X-ray machine advantages:
• better image quality provides the possibility to detect important details through digital processing;

• operation speed provides the possibility to assess the obtained image online using a computer;

• availability – modern portable digital X-ray machines are both portable and stationary and are widely used to diagnose various medical conditions;

• provide the possibility to store relevant information on digital media, ensuring data handling convenience and efficient space utilization;

• and two of the most important advantages are low cost of patient examination and operating staff safety, as digital machines do not require film developing processes thus eliminating contact with chemical reagents.

The PHILIPS DigitalDiagnost, FUJI FCR GO and SHIMADZU MobileDaRt MUX-100Dsystems are among quality digital X-ray machines.

Film (analog) X-ray machine advantages:
• the operational principles for these machines are usually familiar to all X-ray department staff;

• X-ray department performance will not suffer from computer malfunctions, if any;

• they are reliable and can be operated for many years continuously;

• relatively low cost of fim X-ray machines compared to the modern digital ones;

• some modern film X-ray machines support digital functionality, so, if necessary, you can upgrade them to a digital machine.

The GE AMX-4 Plus,GE Proteus XR/a, GE Optima XR200amx systems are among the top film X-ray machines.

Thus, only being aware of all the details will allow you to choose the right machine for you, and what is also important, to get a bargain. In its turn, this will ensure your X-ray department’s quality and proper performance in any clinic.

https://zhongmeixx1.blogspot.com/2015/03/vs-800-external-suction-vacuum-sealing.html
https://www.dentaltown.com/blog/post/12818/how-to-choose-dental-micromotor-fit-for-your-clinic

Do you know how dangerous aerosols in your dental practice?

The purpose of the present study was to determine the microbial atmospheric contamination during initial periodontal treatment using a modern piezoelectric scaler and to evaluate the efficacy of two commercially available mouth rinses (0.2% Chlorhexidine mouth rinse and Listerine) in reducing bacterial contamination when used as a pre-procedural rinse, with and without high volume evacuation (Aerosol reduction device). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Subjects for the study were selected from the outpatient Department of Periodontics, Sri Siddhartha Dental College and Hospital, Tumkur, India. Total 60 patients were taken for the study and on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria’s they were divided into three groups. 

The sampling was carried out in two stages before and after implementing a set protocol. Total duration of study was four months. MICROBIOLOGICAL EVALUATION:The samples (blood agar plates) were transported immediately to the Department of Microbiology, Sri Siddhartha Medical College, Tumkur for: Identification of microorganisms as per standard procedures (Gram stain, Biochemical Test, Species Identification).Counting the number of colonies formed on blood agar plates using colony counter unit. 

RESULTS:Out of all the three pre-procedural rinses 0.2% w/v Chlorhexidine is the best in reducing aerobic bacteria (CFU) followed by Listerine and then Water. CONCLUSION:The following conclusion was drawn that the use of pre-procedural rinses along with the use of high volume suction apparatus significantly reduced the aerosol contamination and hence chances of cross-infection in the dental units.

More related products to kill virus at:https://www.dentalsalemall.com/category-238-b0-Oral-Aerosol-Suction-Unit.html

Tips on choosing the right ozone generator for your application
Some Ozone Generator Know You Should Know

Background
Aerosols and spatter are concerns in health care owing to their potential adverse health effects. The Isolite illuminated isolation system (Isolite Systems) and a saliva ejector were compared for aerosol and spatter reduction during and after ultrasonic scaling.

Methods
Fifty participants were randomized to control (n = 25, saliva ejector) or test (n = 25, Isolite) groups and received a prophylaxis with an ultrasonic scaler. Aerosols were collected in a petri dish containing transport media, dispersed, and plated to anaerobic blood agar to determine colony-forming units (CFUs). The authors analyzed the data using a t test.

Results
No significant difference occurred between groups in aerosol and spatter reduction (P = .25). Mean (standard deviation) of log10 CFUs per milliliter collected during ultrasonic scaling in the control and test groups were 3.61 (0.95) and 3.30 (0.88), respectively. All samples contained α-hemolytic streptococci, and many samples contained strictly oral anaerobes.

Conclusions
A significant amount of contamination occurred during ultrasonic scaling in both groups, as indicated by high numbers of CFUs and the identification of strictly oral anaerobes in all plates.

Practical Implications
Neither device reduced aerosols and spatter effectively, and there was no significant difference in reduction between the 2 devices. Additional measures should be taken with these devices to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission.

If you have any problem in choosing external dental aerosol suction system, you can feel free to contact us.

How to Clear Dentistry Aerosols with Aerosol Suction Unit
Do you know aerosols is so dangerous in you dental clinic