Water Quality Control in Handpieces and Dental Unit: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Alfred Zheng and Version 1 by Maria Antoniadou.

Bacteria populations can be spread during ongoing dental procedures when dentists are using high-speed handpieces and come into direct contact with the wounds of the patient undergoing treatment. There is a risk of water backflow into the dental unit waterline system from the handpieces known under the term of the suck-back phenomenon.

  • water quality
  • infection control
  • handpieces
  • dental unit

1. Introduction

Sustainable entrepreneurship in the field of health depends on the breathing space that managers and employees give to nature and its resources [1]. The recent COVID-19 pandemic made the need to protect and restore natural resources and integrate human activities more effectively even more imperative [2]. The pandemic has raised awareness of the interconnectedness of our own health and the health of ecosystems [3,4,5][3][4][5]. It is vital then that stakeholders of the field avoid becoming stuck in destructive habits of the past towards environmentalism and protect air, water, and natural resources [6,7,8,9,10,11,12][6][7][8][9][10][11][12].
Water pollution is a key driver of biodiversity loss [12,13][12][13] and has harmful effects on our health and environment [14]. Biodiversity is affected by the release of nutrients, chemical pesticides, pharmaceuticals, hazardous chemicals, municipal and industrial wastewater, and other wastes, including litter and plastics, into water resources [15]. Dental offices have long waterline networks. In the field of eco-friendly dental practices, the reduction of water waste and the quality of water in the waterline network of the office and the dental unit, but also the prevention of infections, are challenges that every dentist must face [16,17][16][17]. Increasingly, low water quality has been recognized as a possible cause of biohazards and the spread of infections in the dental office [18,19][18][19]. A biofilm that forms inside the pipes of a building could contaminate the entire water supply network of that building, including the dental office [20]. Furthermore, within the dental clinic, water spreads as an aerosol, increasing both bacterial spread and the risk of infection to all people in the premises [12,21,22,23,24][12][21][22][23][24]. Oral flora [25] and human pathogens (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa [26], various Legionella species (Legionella pneumophila) [27[27][28],28], non-tuberculous Mycobacterium species (Mycobacterium) [29], Helicobacter pylori [30] and other microorganisms including unicellular algae, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa [16,31][16][31]) have already been isolated from dental unit water systems [32]. They can coat and colonize almost any material in the dental clinic [33[33][34],34], especially the suction tube [16], forming biofilms. Biofilms in dental clinics have been shown to form a hazardous bacterial deposit, which can become resistant to various disinfectants [23,35,36,37][23][35][36][37] and serves as a reservoir that can enhance the number of floating (planktonic) microorganisms in the water used for dental treatment [38,39,40][38][39][40].
The trend and attention to this important matter is growing, in part due to the increasing needs for workplace safety for both workers and patients [12,41][12][41]. Good water quality is an important factor in ensuring the quality and safe operation of the dental practice [31,42][31][42]. The water network participates in all clinical protocols, in the antisepsis and disinfection procedures, the operation of the dental unit as well as all other areas (doctor’s office, waiting room, toilets, laboratory, rest room or kitchen). Infections in dental practices can occur very easily [13,43,44][13][43][44]. Therefore, there is considerable (and justified) attention to the sterilization protocols of dental instruments and handpieces [45], but less attention is usually paid to the treatment of water in the practice’s network even though it participates in these protocols [46,47][46][47] and may even cause an erosion effect in oral metal prostheses [48].
Biofilms within the waterlines of dental clinics originate from one of two possible sources of contamination: from the internal piping system using a direct supply from the public network or from the patient’s mouth [31,48][31][48]. The public water supply is not entirely sterile. Water circulating in the system of the city contains a diverse microbial flora which, depending on its type and concentration, is generally harmless to humans. However, under certain conditions, pathogenic microorganisms or opportunistic pathogens can reach the dental unit through the water supply chain [49]. The microbiological quality of the water samples collected throughout the city system does not necessarily correspond to the microbiological quality that could be detected at points closer to the dental practice [17,33,50,51,52][17][33][50][51][52].

2. Procedures and Systems for Water Quality Control in the Handpieces and the Dental Unit

Bacteria populations can be spread during ongoing dental procedures when dentists are using high-speed handpieces [57,58,59,60][53][54][55][56] and come into direct contact with the wounds of the patient undergoing treatment [61][57]. There is a risk of water backflow into the dental unit waterline system from the handpieces known under the term of the suck-back phenomenon [62][58]. High-speed handpieces, in the deceleration phase of cutting, have a centrifugal suction effect that forces them to retract organic material especially from their head [27,63][27][59]. For this reason, many handpieces are equipped with special anti-retraction valves, which hold the suctioned material in the rotor [61][57]. These valves may not provide a perfect blockage (depending on how well the handpiece is maintained) and any leakage can lead to bacterial colonies inside the handpiece body [64][60]. This is an ideal environment for bacteria to grow, increasing the risk of cross-contamination. Consequently, all modern dental clinics need to have integrated disinfection systems [26,64,65][26][60][61].
There are various devices, materials, and filters within or in parallel connection with the dental unit, which make it possible to limit the risk of contamination of the water circulating within its piping: (1) Chlorine dioxide is a powerful and effective disinfecting agent capable of producing and maintaining safe drinking water through oxidation rather than a chlorination reaction [38]. (2) Reverse osmosis is the safest and most widespread water treatment system in the world and can guarantee absolute water purity for the dental unit [66][62]. The osmotic membrane can process water to the molecular size, making its characteristics optimal in terms of color, smell, and organoleptic purity. (3) Electrolysis apparatuses that use only the chlorine normally present in municipal water, such as the Poseidon-S system, an additive-free disinfectant system described in the study of Fujita et al. [67][63] can also control microbial contamination in contaminated dental unit waterlines [32]. (4) Positive relevant results can also be guaranteed with plasma devices [68][64] or (5) acoustic waves at high energy [69][65]. It was mentioned that the efficacy of acoustic waves in preventing Streptococcus mutans adhesion on dental unit waterlines can be important [12]. For surgical procedures, sterile saline or sterile water should be used as the coolant/irrigant. Conventional dental units cannot reliably provide sterile water even when equipped with independent water tanks containing sterile water because the water-carrying path cannot be reliably sterilized [65,70][61][66].
The guidelines on infection control in dental healthcare settings issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [11] recommend that the level of the heterotrophic plate counts (HPCs) in dental unit water should not exceed 500 CFU/mL [71][67]. Moreover, the American Dental Association (ADA) has set a limit of ≤200 CFU/mL on the heterotrophic bacterial load in water from dental unit waterlines [72][68]. In the EU, however, there is no current guideline regarding a dental unit’s waterlines, though in some countries the drinking water standard is used as a reference (≤500 colony forming units (CFU)/mL of water heterotrophic bacteria) [63][59]. For this reason, dental units are designed to include (a) self-contained water systems (e.g., independent water tank) combined with chemical treatment (e.g., periodic or continuous chemical microbicide treatment protocols), (b) systems in parallel connection with one or more dental units within the same dental office that clean or treat incoming water to remove or inactivate microorganisms throughout the network and (c) combinations of these methods (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Graph showcasing various water treatment methods and arrangements within a dental practice: (i) Self-contained water systems (e.g., independent water tank) that supply the dental unit/s. (ii) Systems in line with one or more dental units within the same dental practice that filter incoming water. (iii) Systems in line with one or more dental units within the same dental practice that treat incoming water to remove or inactivate microorganisms throughout the network. These methods (iiii) can also be used sequentially in line, e.g., tank combined with chemical treatment (periodic or continuous chemical microbicide treatment protocols) and filters.
When the treatment of patients is completed, specific protocols should be followed for flushing the suction network to reduce residual microbial contamination [12]. All incoming waterlines of the public water supply system within the dental practice (e.g., taps, dental unit water mains/waterlines and other dental equipment such as the suction mains) should be flushed [35,73][35][69]. There is no agreement on the optimal duration of flushing procedures, but the recommendations suggest that the procedures take from 1 to 5 min [74][70]. The time required may vary depending on the type and length of the network in the dental practice [11,64,74][11][60][70]. After flushing the incoming lines of the public water system, the dental facility waterlines should be disinfected according to manufacturer’s instructions [28,31,54][28][31][71].


  1. Department of Health. Environment and Sustainability Health Technical Memorandum 07-04: Water Management and Water Efficiency—Best Practice Advice for the Healthcare Sector. 2013. Available online: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  2. Facciolà, A.; Laganà, P.; Caruso, G. The COVID-19 pandemic and its implications on the environment. Environ. Res. 2021, 201, 111648.
  3. Lawler, O.K.; Allan, H.L.; Baxter, P.W.J. The COVID-19 pandemic is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and ecosystem health. Lancet Planet. Health 2021, 5, e840–e850.
  4. Marazziti, D.; Cianconi, P.; Mucci, F.; Foresi, L.; Chiarantini, I.; Della Vecchia, A. Climate change, environment pollution, COVID-19 pandemic and mental health. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 773, 145182.
  5. Nandi, S.; Sarkis, J.; Hervani, A.A.; Helms, M.M. Redesigning Supply Chains using Blockchain-Enabled Circular Economy and COVID-19 Experiences. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 10–22.
  6. Εuropean Commision. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing Nature Back into Our Lives. Brussels. 20 May 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52020DC0380 (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  7. Intergovernmental science-policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES: Bonn, Germany, 2019; Volume A.2, p. 12-1.
  8. European Environmental Bureau. EEB Position for a Revised Urban WasteWater Directive. Available online: https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/EEB-position-for-a-revised-UWWTD.pdf (accessed on 15 April 2023).
  9. European Parliament. Revision of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-european-green-deal/file-revision-of-the-urban-wastewater-treatment-directive-(refit) (accessed on 15 April 2023).
  10. European Green Deal. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/#:~:text=The%20European%20Green%20Deal%20is%20a%20package%20of%20policy%20initiatives,a%20modern%20and%20competitive%20economy (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  11. CDC. Reduce Risk from Water. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/prevent/environment/water.html (accessed on 15 April 2023).
  12. Leach, R. Water Management, and IP Risk. Infect. Cont. Today 2023, 27. Available online: https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/water-management-ip-risk (accessed on 15 April 2023).
  13. Antoniadou, M.; Tzoutzas, I.; Tzermpos, F.; Panis, V.; Maltezou, H.; Tseroni, M.; Madianos, F. Infection control during COVID-19 outbreak in a university dental school. J. Oral Hyg. Health 2020, 8, 4.
  14. Rezania, S.; Park, J.; Md Din, M.F. Microplastics pollution in different aquatic environments and biota: A review of recent studies. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 133, 191–208.
  15. Dulsat-Masvidal, M.; Ciudad, C.; Infante, O.; Mateo, R.; Lacorte, S. Water pollution threats in important bird and biodiversity areas from Spain. J. Hazard Mater. 2023, 448, 130938.
  16. Szymańska, J.; Sitkowska, J. Bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines. Environ. Monit. Assess 2013, 185, 3603–3611.
  17. Yuan, Q.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, J. To Implement A Clear-Water Supply System for Fine-Sediment Experiment in Laboratories. Water 2019, 11, 2476.
  18. Matys, J.; Grzech-Leśniak, K. Dental Aerosol as a Hazard Risk for Dental Workers. Materials 2020, 13, 5109.
  19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Summary of Infection Prevention Practices in Dental Settings. Basic Expectations for Safe Care. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Dept of Health and Human Services; October 2016. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/pdf/safe-care2.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2023).
  20. Leoni, E.; Dallolio, L.; Stagni, F.; Sanna, T.; D’Alessandro, G.; Piana, G. Impact of a Risk Management Plan on Legionella Contamination of Dental Unit Water. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 2344–2358.
  21. Dallolio, L.; Scuderi, A.; Rini, M.S.; Valente, S.; Farruggia, P.; Bucci Sabattini, M.A.; Leoni, E. Effect of Different Disinfection Protocols on Microbial and Biofilm Contamination of Dental Unit Waterlines in Community Dental Practices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 2064–2076.
  22. Shajahan, I.F.; Kandaswamy, D.; Srikanth, P.; Narayana, L.L.; Selvarajan, R. Dental unit waterlines disinfection using hypochlorous acid-based disinfectant. J. Conserv. Dent. JCD 2016, 19, 347–350.
  23. Ditommaso, S.; Giacomuzzi, M.; Ricciardi, E.; Zotti, C.M. Efficacy of a Low Dose of Hydrogen Peroxide (Peroxy Ag+) for Continuous Treatment of Dental Unit Water Lines: Challenge Test with Legionella pneumophila Serogroup 1 in a Simulated Dental Unit Waterline. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 745.
  24. Lizzadro, J.; Mazzotta, M.; Girolamini, L.; Dormi, A.; Pellati, T.; Cristino, S. Comparison between Two Types of Dental Unit Waterlines: How Evaluation of Microbiological Contamination Can Support Risk Containment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 328.
  25. Cervino, G.; Fiorillo, L.; Laino, L.; Herford, A.S.; Lauritano, F.; Giudice, G.L.; Fama, F.; Santoro, R.; Troiano, G.; Iannello, G. Oral Health Impact Profile in Celiac Patients: Analysis of Recent Findings in a Literature Review. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2018, 2018, 7848735.
  26. Gawish, S.; Abbass, A.; Abaza, A. Occurrence and biofilm forming ability of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the water output of dental unit waterlines in a dental center in Alexandria, Egypt. Germs 2019, 9, 71–80.
  27. Ajami, B.; Ghazvini, K.; Movahhed, T.; Ariaee, N.; Shakeri, M.T.; Makarem, S. Contamination of a Dental Unit Water Line System by Legionella Pneumophila in the Mashhad School of Dentistry in 2009. Iran Red Crescent. Med. J. 2012, 14, 376–378.
  28. Tuvo, B.; Totaro, M.; Cristina, M.L. Prevention and Control of Legionella and Pseudomonas spp. Colonization in Dental Units. Pathogens 2020, 9, 305.
  29. Pouralibaba, F.; Balaei, E.; Kashefimehr, A. Evaluation of Gram-Negative Bacterial Contamination in Dental Unit Water Supplies in a University Clinic in Tabriz, Iran. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect 2011, 5, 94–97.
  30. Giacomuzzi, M.; Zotti, C.M.; Ditommaso, S. Colonization of Dental Unit Waterlines by Helicobacter pylori: Risk of Exposure in Dental Practices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2981.
  31. Cicciù, M. Water Contamination Risks at the Dental Clinic. Biology 2020, 9, 43.
  32. Cárdenas, A.M.; Campos-Bijit, V.; Di Francesco, F.; Schwarz, F.; Cafferata, E.A.; Vernal, R. Electrolyzed water for the microbiologic control in the pandemic dental setting: A systematic review. BMC Oral. Health 2022, 22, 579.
  33. Hatzenbuehler, L.A.; Tobin-D’Angelo, M.; Drenzek, C.; Peralta, G.; Cranmer, L.C.; Anderson, E.J.; Milla, S.S.; Abramowicz, S.; Yi, J.; Hilinski, J.; et al. Pediatric dental clinic-associated outbreak of Mycobacterium abscessus infection. J. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. Soc. 2017, 6, e116–e122.
  34. Han, P.; Li, H.; Walsh, L.J.; Ivanovski, S. Splatters and Aerosols Contamination in Dental Aerosol Generating Procedures. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1914.
  35. Spagnolo, A.M.; Sartini, M.; Cristina, M.L. Microbial Contamination of Dental Unit Waterlines and Potential Risk of Infection: A Narrative Review. Pathogens 2020, 13, 651.
  36. Fiorillo, L. Conscious Sedation in Dentistry. Medicina 2019, 55, 778.
  37. Walker, J.T.; Bradshaw, D.J.; Bennett, A.M.; Fulford, M.R.; Martin, M.V.; Marsh, P.D. Microbial Biofilm Formation and Contamination of Dental-Unit Water Systems in General Dental Practice. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 3363–3367.
  38. Walker, J.T.; Bradshaw, D.J.; Fulford, M.R.; Marsh, P.D. Microbiological Evaluation of a Range of Disinfectant Products To Control Mixed-Species Biofilm Contamination in a Laboratory Model of a Dental Unit Water System. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2003, 69, 3327–3332.
  39. Yabune, T.; Imazato, S.; Ebisu, S. Assessment of Inhibitory Effects of Fluoride-Coated Tubes on Biofilm Formation by Using the In Vitro Dental Unit Waterline Biofilm Model. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 74, 5958–5964.
  40. Mills, S.E. The dental unit waterline controversy: Defusing the myths, defining the solutions. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2000, 131, 1427–1441.
  41. EU. Directorate-General for Environment. Proposal for Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation. Annexes—Proposal for a Regulation Establishing a Framework for Setting Ecodesign Requirements for Sustainable Products and Repealing Directive 2009/125/EC. Available online: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/proposal-ecodesign-sustainable-products-regulation_en (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  42. Cicciu, M.; Fiorillo, L.; Herford, A.S.; Crimi, S.; Bianchi, A.; D’Amico, C.; Laino, L.; Cervino, G. Bioactive Titanium Surfaces: Interactions of Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells of Nano Devices Applied to Dental Practice. Biomedicines 2019, 7, 12.
  43. Cataldi, M.E.; Al Rakayan, S.; Arcuri, C.; Condò, R. Dental unit wastewater, a current environmental problem: A sistematic review. Oral. Implantol. 2017, 10, 354–359.
  44. Innes, N.; Johnson, I.G.; Al-Yaseen, W.; Harris, R.; Jones, R.; Kc, S.; McGregor, S.; Robertson, M.; Wade, W.G.; Gallagher, J.E. A systematic review of droplet and aerosol generation in dentistry. J. Dent. 2021, 105, 103556.
  45. Sasaki, J.I.; Imazato, S. Autoclave sterilization of dental handpieces: A literature review. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2020, 64, 239–242.
  46. Maltezou, H.; Tseroni, Μ.; Vorou, Ρ.; Koutsolioutsou, A.; Antoniadou, Μ.; Tzoutzas, Ι.; Panis, V.; Tzermpos, F.; Madianos, P. Preparing dental schools to refunction safely during the COVID-19 pandemic: An infection prevention and control perspective. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2021, 15, 22–31.
  47. Senpuku, H.; Fukumoto, M.; Uchiyama, T.; Taguchi, C.; Suzuki, I.; Arikawa, K. Effects of Extraoral Suction on Droplets and Aerosols for Infection Control Practices. Den. J. 2021, 9, 80.
  48. Chen, Z.; Osman, A.I.; Rooney, D.W.; Oh, W.-D.; Yap, P.-S. Remediation of Heavy Metals in Polluted Water by Immobilized Algae: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5128.
  49. Engsomboon, N.; Pachimsawat, P.; Thanathornwong, B. Comparative Dissemination of Aerosol and Splatter Using Suction Device during Ultrasonic Scaling: A Pilot Study. Dent. J. 2022, 10, 142.
  50. Li, Y.; Xu, Z.; Ma, H.S.; Hursthouse, A. Removal of Manganese (II) from Acid Mine Wastewater: A Review of the Challenges and Opportunities with Special Emphasis on Mn-Oxidizing Bacteria and Microalgae. Water 2019, 11, 2493.
  51. Engelmann, C.; Schmidt, L.; Werth, C.J.; Walther, M. Quantification of Uncertainties from Image Processing and Analysis in Laboratory-Scale DNAPL Release Studies Evaluated by Reflective Optical Imaging. Water 2019, 11, 2274.
  52. Yoon, H.Y.; Lee, S.Y. Susceptibility of bacteria isolated from dental unit waterlines to disinfecting chemical agents. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 64, 269–275.
  53. Putnins, E.E.; Di Giovanni, D.; Bhullar, A.S. Dental unit waterline contamination and its possible implications during periodontal surgery. J. Periodontol. 2001, 72, 393–400.
  54. Toomarian, L.; Rikhtegaran, S.; Sadighi, M.; Savadi Oskoee, S.; Alizadeh Oskoee, P. Contamination of Dental Unit Water and Air Outlets Following Use of Clean Head System and Conventional Handpieces. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 2007, 1, 43–47.
  55. Laino, L.; Cicciù, M.; Fiorillo, L.; Crimi, S.; Bianchi, A.; Amoroso, G.; Monte, I.P.; Herford, A.S.; Cervino, G. Surgical Risk on Patients with Coagulopathies: Guidelines on Hemophiliac Patients for Oro-Maxillofacial Surgery. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1386.
  56. Takenaka, S.; Sotozono, M.; Yashiro, A.; Saito, R.; Kornsombut, N.; Naksagoon, T.; Nagata, R.; Ida, T.; Edanami, N.; Noiri, Y. Efficacy of Combining an Extraoral High-Volume Evacuator with Preprocedural Mouth Rinsing in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaling. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6048.
  57. Adedoja, O.S.; Hamam, Y.; Khalaf, B.; Sadiku, R. Development of a Contaminant Distribution Model for Water Supply Systems. Water 2019, 11, 1510.
  58. Acosta-Gio, E.; Bednarsh, H.; Cuny, E.; Eklund, K.; Mills, S.; Risk, D. Sterilization of dental handpieces. Am. J. Infect. Control 2017, 45, 937–938.
  59. Walker, J.T.; Marsh, P.D. Microbial biofilm formation in DUWS and their control using disinfectants. J. Dent. 2007, 35, 721–730.
  60. Offner, D.; Fioretti, F.; Musset, A.-M. Contamination of dental unit waterlines: Assessment of three continuous water disinfection systems. BDJ Open 2016, 2, 1–6.
  61. Pawar, A.; Garg, S.; Mehta, S.; Dang, R. Breaking the Chain of Infection: Dental Unit Water Quality Control. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016, 10, ZC80–ZC84.
  62. Garg, S.K.; Mittal, S.; Kaur, P. Dental unit waterline management: Historical perspectives and current trends. J. Investig. Clin. Dent. 2012, 3, 247–252.
  63. Fujita, M.; Mashima, I.; Nakazawa, F. Monitoring the decontamination efficacy of the novel Poseidon-S disinfectant system in dental unit water lines. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2017, 50, 270–276.
  64. Noopan, S.; Unchui, P.; Techotinnakorn, S.; Ampornaramveth, R.S. Plasma Sterilization Effectively Reduces Bacterial Contamination in Dental Unit Waterlines. Int. J. Dent. 2019, 2019, 5720204.
  65. Pantanella, F.; Schippa, S.; Solimini, A.; Rosa, L.; Bettucci, A.; Berlutti, F. Efficacy of acoustic waves in preventing Streptococcus mutans adhesion on dental unit water line. Ann. Ig. 2019, 31, 109–116.
  66. Troiano, G.; Laino, L.; Cicciu, M.; Cervino, G.; Fiorillo, L.; D’Amico, C.; Zhurakivska, K.; Lo Muzio, L. Comparison of Two Routes of Administration of Dexamethasone to Reduce the Postoperative Sequelae after Third Molar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Open. Dent. J. 2018, 12, 181–188.
  67. Kohn, W.G.; Collins, A.S.; Cleveland, J.L.; Harte, J.A.; Eklund, K.J.; Malvitz, D.M. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings-2003. MMWR Recomm. Rep. 2003, 52, RR-17.
  68. American Dental Association ADA Statement on Dental unit waterlines. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1996, 127, 185–186.
  69. Alkhulaifi, M.M.; Alotaibi, D.H.; Alajlan, H.; Binshoail, T. Assessment of nosocomial bacterial contamination in dental unit waterlines: Impact of flushing. Saudi Dent. J. 2020, 32, 68–73.
  70. Fiorillo, L. We Do Not Eat Alone: Formation and Maturation of the Oral Microbiota. Biology 2020, 9, 17.
  71. Hoogenkamp, M.A.; Brandt, B.W.; Laheij, A.M.G.A.; de Soet, J.J.; Crielaard, W. The microbiological load and microbiome of the Dutch dental unit; ‘please, hold your breath’. Water Res. 2021, 200, 117205.
Video Production Service