文章摘要
不同清洗口腔器械方法的效率与质量比较
Comparison of efficiency and quality of different cleaning methods for dental instruments
投稿时间：2020-06-02  
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1000-0399.2020.12.026
中文关键词: 口腔器械  手工清洗  超声清洗  清洗质量
英文关键词: Dental instruments  Manual cleaning  Ultrasonic cleaning  Cleaning quality
基金项目:安徽省重点研究与开发计划项目（项目编号：201904a07020062），安徽医科大学校科研基金（项目编号：2018xkj099）
作者单位
陈叶俊 230032 合肥 安徽医科大学附属口腔医院护理部 
石小招 230032 合肥 安徽医科大学附属口腔医院护理部 
耿思雅 230032 合肥 安徽医科大学附属口腔医院感染管理科 
叶素英 230032 合肥 安徽医科大学附属口腔医院消毒供应中心 
张翠玉 230032 合肥 安徽医科大学附属口腔医院消毒供应中心 
摘要点击次数: 892
全文下载次数: 0
中文摘要:
      目的 比较手工、手工联合超声清洗口腔器械的效率与质量。方法 将安徽医科大学附属口腔医院2019年1~6月口腔器械按随机数字表法分为A组（手工清洗）与B组（手工联合超声清洗），每组200件。比较两组器械清洗耗时及合格率。结果 A组器械一次清洗耗时（1.02±0.29）h，B组（1.33±0.19）h，两组差异有统计学意义（t=-12.500，P<0.001）；A组器械二次清洗耗时（0.68±0.32）h，B组（0.32±0.20）h，两组差异有统计学意义（t=4.318，P<0.001）；A组器械完全合格清洗耗时（1.12±0.44）h，B组（1.34±0.21）h，两组差异有统计学意义（t=-6.367，P<0.001）。A组器械一次清洗合格率为85.50%，B组为94.50%，两组差异有统计学意义（χ2=9.000，P=0.003）。A组器械二次清洗合格率为89.66%，B组为100.00%，两组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 手工联合超声清洗口腔器械，效率、清洗质量更高。
英文摘要:
      Objective To compare the efficiency and quality of manual and manual combined ultrasonic cleaning method for dental instruments. Methods From January to June 2019 in the Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Anhui Medical University, according to the random number table method, dental instruments were randomly divided into group A (manual cleaning) and group B (manual combined ultrasonic cleaning) with 200 pieces each, and the cleaning time and pass rate between the two groups were compared. Results The first cleaning time was (1.02±0.29) h for group A, and (1.33±0.19) h for group B, between which there was a statistically significant difference(t=-12.500, P<0.001). The second cleaning time was (0.68±0.32) h for group A and (0.32±0.20) h for group B, between which there was a statistically significant difference (t=4.318, P<0.001). The completely qualified cleaning time was (1.12±0.44) h for group A and (1.34±0.21) h for group B, with a statistically significant difference (t=-6.367, P<0.001) between the two groups. The first pass rate was 85.50% for group A and 94.50% for group B, between which there was a statistically significant difference (χ2=9.000, P=0.003). The second pass rate was 89.66% for group A and 100.00% for group B, with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusion Manual combined ultrasonic cleaning method for dental instruments has higher efficiency and cleaning quality.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭