Sterility maintenance of reused disposable paper/plastic sterilization pouches in actual clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paper/plastic sterilization pouches are commonly used packaging material for steam sterilization. Reuse of these pouches is a general practice in Thailand despite a single-use recommendation. This study aimed to determine microbial contamination after reusing paper/plastic sterilization pouches in a dental clinic and storage in a closed environment for 6 months. Three hundred and twenty pouches underwent 3 times of clinical use in terms of packaging, autoclave sterilization, handling, and unpacking. A mouth mirror was packed in each pouch to be used in a clinic. After each use, a pouch would be carefully inspected for reusability and undergone packaging, sterilization, handling again. In all steps, sterilization monitoring was rigorously applied. After 3 times of use, a piece of filter paper was placed inside each pouch (instead of a mouth mirror), the pouch was autoclaved and stored in a closed environment for 6 months. Then the filter paper was retrieved for microbial cultivation. A negative control group comprised new pouches containing filter paper without storage and a positive control group comprised pouches with impaired integrity. All samples in both the reuse and the negative control groups had no microbial contamination. All samples in the positive control group showed contamination. These results suggested that reusing paper/plastic sterilization pouches could be a safe practice provided careful monitoring and inspection were employed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".