Back to Journals » Infection and Drug Resistance » Volume 12

More Caution Needs in Study Design and Method Selection for “In vitro Antibacterial Effect of Deconex and Sodium Hypochlorite Against Bacterial Taxa Isolated from Dental Units” [Response to Letter]

Authors Amin M, Ardaneh M, Hashemzadeh M, Asarehzadegan Dezfuli A, JafarZadeh E

Received 13 December 2019

Accepted for publication 17 December 2019

Published 30 December 2019 Volume 2019:12 Pages 3987—3988

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S242240

Download Article [PDF] 

Mansour Amin, 1, 2 Marieh Ardaneh, 1 Mohammad Hashemzadeh, 1, 2 Aram Asarehzadegan Dezfuli, 1 Elham JafarZadeh 3

1Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran; 2Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Health Research Institute, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran; 3Laboratory of Taleqhani Hospital, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

Correspondence: Mohammad Hashemzadeh
Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
Tel +98 9166034584
Email [email protected]

 

We thank Emami and colleagues for their interest in guiding us to their recently published study reporting “In vitro antibacterial effect of deconex and sodium hypochlorite against bacterial taxa isolated from dental units”.1 We have attempted to answer their queries as much as possible. Deconex is the predominant agent used in our dental units for many years, hence, we evaluated health staff performance in dental faculty. Also in our introduction and results recommended the deconex was strong to eliminate microorganisms, thus this disinfection agent is confirmed. According to the results obtained in this study, there are some technical errors were happened by the dental technician in the decontamination procedure.

This is in response to the Letter to the Editor
View the original paper by Amin and colleagues


Dear editor

We thank Emami and colleagues for their interest in guiding us to their recently published study reporting “In vitro antibacterial effect of deconex and sodium hypochlorite against bacterial taxa isolated from dental units”.1 We have attempted to answer their queries as much as possible. Deconex is the predominant agent used in our dental units for many years, hence, we evaluated health staff performance in dental faculty. Also in our introduction and results recommended the deconex was strong to eliminate microorganisms, thus this disinfection agent is confirmed. According to the results obtained in this study, there are some technical errors were happened by the dental technician in the decontamination procedure. Therefore, it is necessary to re-inspection and improve the methods of decontamination and the use of appropriate concentrations of this product. Actually, in this research, we criticize the function of the dental technician in the decontamination routinely procedure, not the efficacy of deconex. Can it be said that antibiotics are approved by CLSI? Is not it necessary to measure antibiotic resistance? Of course not. The evaluation of microbial contamination of dental units and quality control of health workers is the subject recommended by the American Dental Association. Emami and his colleagues have used the term “resistance against alcoholic-based disinfectants”. If the word is incorrect then it should be used “tolerance to an alcohol solution”.2 Many studies have been investigating this phenomenon, and it may have been in our results. This phenomenon continues to be associated with increased antibiotic resistance. Our study has no claim that the bacteria are resistant to an alcohol solution. We confirm the Rideal-Walker phenol coefficient (R.W.C) test was the standard test, but according to reference this method has many limitations that can affect our study. Thus we decided to use the MIC method according to reference.3,4 Also, this method is used in many authentic studies. According to CLSI reference-based, 50mL of each dilution was added in 96-well plated containing 50mL defined Luria–Bertani broth. Each well was inoculated with 50mL of the bacterial sample and mixed gently, yielding a final bacterial concentration of approximately 1*106 (CFU/mL). On the other hand, our concentration of the bacterial sample was corrected. In our study, 120 samples were yielded that 20 samples were fungi and excluded from the study. However, 100 samples were considered in this study. In fact from each unit, one sample was taken. In total after calculated microbial counting, the higher contamination of units was found in oral medicine, root canal therapy, surgical units. The high volume of the contamination may be because areas selected for sampling may not be disinfected by the personnel.5 Finally, to determine the morphology of the bacterial colony we used gram stain that was incorrectly hot dyeing. We apologize for this.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication.

References

1. Emami A, Pirbonyeh N, Javanmardi F. More caution needs in study design and method selection for “in vitro antibacterial effect of deconex and sodium hypochlorite against bacterial taxa isolated from dental units”. Infect Drug Resist. 2019;12:2655–2656.

2. Pittet D, Peters A, Tartari E. Enterococcus faecium tolerance to isopropanol: from good science to misinformation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(10):1065–1066. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30542-5

3. Phelps EB. The limitations of the phenol coefficient in the standardization of disinfectants. Am J Public Health. 1913;3(1):53–57. doi:10.2105/AJPH.3.1.53

4. Penna TC, Mazzola PG, Martins AM. The efficacy of chemical agents in cleaning and disinfection programs. BMC Infect Dis. 2001;1(1):16. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-1-16

5. Nascente PD, Meinerz AR, Faria RO, Schuch LF, Meireles MC, Mello JR. CLSI broth microdilution method for testing susceptibility of malasseziapachydermatis to thiabendazole. Braz J Microbiol. 2009;40(2):222–226. doi:10.1590/S1517-83822009000200002

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]