Enfeksiyondan Korunmada Güncel Rehberler Doğrultusunda Koruyucu Ekipmanların Kullanımının Önemi: Anket Sonuçlarının Değerlendirilmesi

GİRİŞ ve AMAÇ: Çalışmanın amacı diş hekimliği öğrencileri ve akademik personelin enfeksiyon ve korunma yollarına ilişkin yaklaşımlarını değerlendirmek, belirli bir tür eldiven seçimindeki kriterlerini, bunun nedenlerini araştırmak; bir koruyucu olarak eldiven kullanımındaki bilinçlilik ve davranış şeklini belirlemektir. YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Veriler 181 diş hekimliği öğrencisi ve 122 akademik personele uygulanan ankette yanıtlanan “Belirli bir tür eldiven seçimindeki kriteriniz nedir?, Eldiveninizi, maskenizi ne sürede değiştirişiniz?” gibi sorulara verilen cevaplarla elde edildi. BULGULAR: Katılımcıların yüzde 44,9’u belirli bir türde eldiven tercih ettiklerini belirtmişlerdir. “Diş hekiminin alerjisi olması” eldiven seçiminde en sık rapor edilen nedendi. Bazı katılımcılar eldivenlerin tam koruma sağladığına dair yanlış bilgiye sahipken; bazıları eldivenlerin neredeyse koruma sağlamadığını düşünmekteydi. TARTIŞMA ve SONUÇ: Öğrencilerin ve akademik personelin ortalama değerin üzerinde bilinçlilik gösterdiği ve bulaşıcı hastalıklar konusunda bilgi sahibi olduğu, hastasına doğru bir yaklaşım sergilediği gözlemlenmiştir. Yine de bulgular diş hekimliği eğiticilerini; öğrencilerinin enfeksiyon ve korunma yollarıyla ilgili eğitiminin önemi hakkında uyarmakta; tavsiye rehberlerini destekleyen bilim ve teknolojiyi takip ederek enfeksiyon kontrolü hakkında akademik personele kapsamlı ve pratik uygulamalar yaptırılması konusunda uyarıcı niteliktedir.

The Significance of Using Protective Equipments in Preservation of Infection from Current Guides: Evaluation of Survey Results

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to explore dental students and dental professionals preferences for certain types of gloves and the reasons for these preferences, as well as determining their knowledge and behavior concerning the use of dental gloves as a means of protection. METHODS: Data were collected from 181 dental students, 122 dental professionals by answering the questions such as “What are the reasons for preferring certain types of gloves?, How often do you change your glove and mask?”. RESULTS: 44.9 percent of respondents said they prefer gloves in a certain type. “Provider allergies” was most frequently reported as a reason for glove preference. Some respondents wrongly believed that gloves provide full protection, thought that gloves provide protection as long as there is no visible tear. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It was observed that the students and the academic staff showed awareness over the average value and informed about the infectious diseases and displayed a correct approach to the patient. Nonetheless, the findings may include dentistry trainers; warns students about the importance of education about infection and prevention methods; it follows the science and technology supporting the advice guides and warns the academic staff about comprehensive and practical applications about infection control.

PDF

___

Mutlu S, Porter S, Scully C. Diş Hekimliğinde Çapraz İnfeksiyon Kontrolü. İstanbul, Er Ofset. 1996, p.1-19, 66-68.
CDC guidelines for infection control in dental health care settings. MMWR http://www. cdc.gov/ mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5217.pdf 2003;52 RR-17.
Kanjirath PP, Coplen AE, Chapman JC, Peters MC, Inglehart MR. Effectiveness of gloves and infection control in dentistry: student and provider perspectives. J Dent Educ, 2009, 73: 571-580.
Checchi L, Conti S, D’Achille C. Evaluation of the permeability of latex gloves for use in dental practice. Quintessence Int, 1991, 22: 949-959.
Shulman ER, Brehm WT. Dental clinical attire and infection-control procedures. Patients’ attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc, 2001, 132: 508-516.
Oztan MD, Pekiner BD, Can A. Permeability of latex gloves after exposure to 6 chemical agents. Quintessence Int, 2007, 38: e537-543.
Kosti E, Lambrianidis T. Endodontic treatment in cases of allergic reaction to rubber dam. J Endod, 2002, 28: 787-789.
Prospero E, Savini S, Annino I. Microbial aerosol contamination of dental healthcare workers’ faces and other surfaces in dental practice. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2003, 24: 139-141.
Checchi L, Gatto MR, Legnani P, Pelliccioni GA, Bisbini P. Use of gloves and prevalence of glove-related reactions in a sample of general dental practitioners in Italy. Quintessence Int, 1999, 30: 633- 636.
Turjanmaa K, Laurila K, Makinen-Kiljunen S, Reunala T. Rubber contact urticaria. Allergenic properties of 19 brands of latex gloves. Contact Dermatitis, 1988, 19: 362-367.
Gomolka K. Personal protective equipment enhances safety. Dent Prod Rep 29:46. 1995.
Snyder HA, Settle S. The rise in latex allergy: implications for the dentist. J Am Dent Assoc, 1994, 125: 1089-1097.
Fay MF, Beck WC, Checchi L, Winkler D. Glowes: New selection criteria. Quintessence Int. 26:25, 1995.
Rego A, Roley L. In-use barrier integrity of gloves: latex and nitrile superior to vinyl. Am J Infect Control, 1999, 27: 405-410.
Merchant VA, Molinari JA, Pickett T. Microbial penetration of gloves following usage in routine dental procedures. Am J Dent, 1992, 5: 95-96.
Otis LL, Cottone JA. Prevalence of perforations in disposable latex gloves during routine dental treatment. J Am Dent Assoc, 1989, 118: 321-324.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Investigations of patients who have been treated by HIVinfected health-care workers-United States. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 1993;42:329- 331.
Schlegel D. Berufskrankheiten des Zahnarztes? (Vergi eichende Analyse verschiedener Erhebungen)-II. TeilZWR 86(8):409-411. 1977.
Nohutçu R. Diş Hekimliğinde Maske, Gözlük ve Siperlik. 6. Ulusal Sterilizasyon Dezenfeksiyon Kongresi, 2009.
Higgins CR, Schofield JK, Tatnall FM, Leigh IM. Natural history, management and complications of herpes labialis. J Med Virol, 1993, Suppl 1: 22-26.
Kanjirath PP, Peters MC, Inglehart MR. Treating patients with herpes simplex virus infections: dental and dental hygiene students’ knowledge, attitudes, and professional behavior. J Dent Educ, 2007, 71: 1133-1144.
Wilson SJ, Sellu D, Uy A, Jaffer MA. Subjective effects of double gloves on surgical performance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 1996, 78: 20-22.
Olsen RJ, Lynch P, Coyle MB, Cummings J, Bokete T, Stamm WE. Examination gloves as barriers to hand contamination in clinical practice. JAMA, 1993, 270: 350-353.
Zeren A, Kale B, Yaylalı D, Külekçi G. The effect of a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse on bacterial aerosols in dentsitry. Sixth Congress of the International Federation of Infection Control, October 13- 16. 2005, İstanbul, Turkey.
Inglehart M, Tedesco L, Valachovic R. Quality of life: refocusing dental education. Chapter 16. In: Inglehart MR, Bagramian RA, eds. Oral health and quality of life. Chicago: Quintessence Publishers. 2002: 183-92.