Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/57188
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorArnon Charuakkraen_US
dc.contributor.authorSangsom Prapayasatoken_US
dc.contributor.authorApirum Janhomen_US
dc.contributor.authorKarune Verochanaen_US
dc.contributor.authorPhattaranant Mahasantipiyaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-05T03:36:15Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-05T03:36:15Z-
dc.date.issued2017-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn0250832Xen_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85012124614en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1259/dmfr.20160253en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85012124614&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/57188-
dc.description.abstract© 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology. Objectives: (1) To compare the efficacy of a commercially available hygienic sheath and an alternative plastic bag in preventing contamination of the imaging plate during intraoral radiography and (2) to compare patient discomfort when using the hygienic sheath and the plastic bag. Methods: 60 sterilized Size 2 imaging plates covered with either the hygienic sheath (n = 30) or the plastic bag (n = 30) were used to simulate digital periapical radiographic examination in 30 volunteer patients. After disinfection, each plate was swabbed. The swabbed medium was then plated on trypticase soy agar and incubated. Bacterial colonies were counted. Patient discomfort was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) score. The comparison of the number of bacterial colonies and VAS scores between the two groups was tested by paired t-test at p < 0.05. Results: There was no significant difference in the number of bacterial colonies between the two groups (p = 0.745). Of all the plates, 10% plates yielded bacterial colonies. The mean count of bacterial colonies for both groups was 10-20 CFU ml-1. However, there was a significant difference between VAS scores for the two systems (p = 0.000). The mean VAS scores (range 0-10) for patient discomfort for the hygienic sheath group and the plastic bag group were 3.03 and 5.33, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the design of this study, the alternative barrier provided similar results to those commercially available. Regarding the type of barrier envelope, the hygienic sheath induced less discomfort than the plastic bag.en_US
dc.subjectDentistryen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleInfection control and patient discomfort with an alternative plastic barrier in intraoral digital radiographyen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleDentomaxillofacial Radiologyen_US
article.volume46en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.