Innovation by Computer-Aided DesignComputer-Aided Manufacturing Technology: A Look at Infection Prevention in Dental Settings

Abstract EN

Recent data indicates limited awareness and compliance on infection prevention procedures by dental offices and by dental laboratories.

Guidelines for infection prevention in dentistry have been published by Centres for Disease Control and Prevention since 2003; the section “IX-Special consideration” includes a subsection concerning the prevention in dental laboratories, but it has not been modernised in later versions to fit the needs of traditional and computer-aided technology.

Traditional techniques required disinfecting items (impression, chewing waxes, and appliances) with well-suited products, which are also chosen for limiting impression changes or appliance deterioration.

Effective procedures are available with difficulties.

Some of these contain irritant or non-eco-friendly disinfectants.

The transport of impression, to dental laboratories, is often delayed with limited precautions for limiting cross-infection.

Gypsum casts are frequently contaminated mainly by bacteria and their antibiotic-resistant strains and even stored for long periods during dental implant supported restoration and orthodontic therapy, becoming a hidden source of infection.

Nowadays, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology seems to be an interesting way to promote both business and safety, being more comfortable for patients and more accurate than traditional technology.

A further advantage is easier infection prevention since, for the most part, mainly digital impression and casts are not a source of cross-infection and the transport of contaminated items is reduced and limited to try-in stages.

Nevertheless, a peculiar feature is that a digital electronic file is of course unalterable, but may be ruined by a computer virus.

Additionally, the reconditioning of scanner tips is determinant for the optical characteristics and long term use of the scanner, but information for its reconditioning from producers is often limited.

This study focuses on some critical points including (a) insufficient guidelines, (b) choice of proper procedure for scanner reconditioning, and (c) data protection in relation to patient privacy.