
AbstractThis study is to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of using a non-contact automatic articulating paper dispenser for reducing microbial articulating paper contamination. Articulating papers in four-handed mode, non-four-handed mode, and via an automatic articulating paper dispenser were evaluated. An adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay was used to quantitatively measure the relative light unit (RLU) values of the rest unused articulating papers in the same package to detect contamination at 4 time points, and triplicate examinations were performed for all three methods. The RLUs were recorded, compared, and evaluated. For four-handed mode (n = 36), the RLUs at the four time points were 2.44, 32.89, 37.89, and 27.22, with a satisfactory rate of 94%. The RLUs for non-four-handed mode (n = 36) were 2.22, 286.44, 299.44, and 493.56, with a satisfactory rate of 36%. The RLUs for using the automatic dispenser (n = 36) were all 0 with a satisfactory rate of 100%. The satisfactory rates were significantly different among three methods. No significant differences were observed in the satisfactory rates for the four time points samples. Contact by gloved hands can cause severe biological contamination of articulating paper. However, by using standard four-handed mode or a non-contact automatic articulating paper dispenser, contamination can be controlled.
Infection Control, Adenosine Triphosphate, Luminescent Measurements, Colony Count, Microbial, Equipment Contamination, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Equipment Design, Dental Equipment, Article
Infection Control, Adenosine Triphosphate, Luminescent Measurements, Colony Count, Microbial, Equipment Contamination, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Equipment Design, Dental Equipment, Article
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
