The Use of Personal Protective Equipment in a Biosafety Level 2 Prospective Observational Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-412
Author(s):  
Natálie Hrdinová ◽  
Simona Saibertová ◽  
Andrea Pokorná
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 73-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Gonçalves Jezini Monteiro ◽  
Mariana Martins e Martins ◽  
Adriana de Alcantara Cury-Saramago ◽  
Henry Pinheiro Teixeira

ABSTRACT Objective: This cross-sectional observational study was designed to assess the biosafety conducts adopted by orthodontists, and possible differences regarding training time. Methods: Both the application of methods for sterilization/disinfection of instruments and materials, and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were collected through questionnaires via e-mail. Results: The questionnaires were answered by 90 orthodontists with a mean age of 37.19 ± 9.08 years and mean training time of 13.52 ± 6.84 years. Regarding orthodontic pliers, 63.23% use an autoclave, except 1 who does not perform any procedure. All participants use autoclave to sterilize instruments, and 95.6% of respondents perform cleaning with chemicals prior to sterilization. Most of them (65.56%) use an autoclave to sterilize orthodontic bands, with some still associating disinfection methods, while few (18.89%) do nothing at all. There was a high incidence of the answer “nothing” for the methods used for elastic, accessories, bandages, metal springs, and arches. All respondents use mask and gloves in attendance, 78.92% use aprons, 58.92% use protective goggles, and 50.01% use cap. Training time significantly influenced (p = 0.003) only the use of glutaraldehyde for sterilization/disinfection of pliers. Conclusions: The sterilization and cleaning of pliers, instruments, and bands, besides the use of PPE, received more uniform and positive responses, while other items suggest disagreements and possible failures. Only orthodontists trained for more than 13 years choose using glutaraldehyde for pliers sterilization/disinfection, the only adopted method with a significant difference in relation to training time.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaijin Wang ◽  
Xuetong Zhu ◽  
Jiancheng Xu

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 43-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Emery ◽  
Pek Lee ◽  
James Garman

Heightened interest in pathogens with the potential for aerosol transmission and for which prevention and medical treatment is not readily available has resulted in a need for more work environments that meet Biosafety Level 3 (BSL 3) criteria. Recognizing that the facility-based criteria for BSL 3 cannot be achieved by some existing laboratories, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) biological safety guidelines provide an option for attaining BSL 3 status through the use of Biosafety Level 2 (BSL 2) facilities and strict adherence to BSL 3 practices (BSL 2/3). Inherent to this provision is a greater emphasis on safe work practices. Since the extent to which this approach is actually used in practice is not known, a nationwide mail survey of medical academic and research institutions was conducted to provide an objective indication of the proportion of BSL 3 operations actually being carried out in the BSL 2/3 mode. The results obtained indicate that 2% of activities designated as BSL 3 in the study population actually achieve this level of protection using the BSL 2/3 approach. The findings quantitatively estimate for the first time the proportion of BSL 3 activities being carried out in this fashion, and can serve as a reference point for future studies to evaluate usage trends. The results also demonstrate the utility of flexible, performance-based health and safety guidelines, as a significant amount of clinical and research work is being accommodated with the BSL 2/3 provision.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Johnston ◽  
Ray M. Merrill ◽  
Grant C. Zimmerman ◽  
Scott C. Collingwood ◽  
James C. Reading

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Checinska Sielaff ◽  
Nitin K. Singh ◽  
Jonathan E. Allen ◽  
James Thissen ◽  
Crystal Jaing ◽  
...  

The draft genome sequences of 20 biosafety level 2 (BSL-2) opportunistic pathogens isolated from the environmental surfaces of the International Space Station (ISS) were presented. These genomic sequences will help in understanding the influence of microgravity on the pathogenicity and virulence of these strains when compared with Earth strains.


2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Johnston ◽  
Steven M. Thygerson ◽  
Michele J. Johnson ◽  
James C. Reading

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document