ASEPSIS BETWEEN THE DENTAL OFFICE AND LABORATORY: A TUNISIAN CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: For a long time, the prevention of cross-contamination in dentistry has mainly been concentrated in the operating room. Activity related to laboratory work, a potential source of pathogen transmission, is therefore often overlooked. In addition, the practice of prosthodontics often gives the impression that aseptic measures cannot be rigorously applied. Several factors account for this situation. Designing a prosthesis involves handling a certain number of potentially contaminated and heat-sensitive objects (prostheses, impressions, wax tubes, occlusion bites, etc.). The items transferred between the dental office and the dental laboratory as well as the prosthetic instruments constitute the main chain of cross contamination in prosthodontics. Thus, an evaluation of the dentists and prosthetists’ compliance with regard to their asepsis through a cross-sectional study was necessary. Methods: two anonymous questionnaires were distributed. The first was among the dentists and the second to dental prosthetists in the public and private sectors. Results: From the 302 questionnaires distributed, only 220 were filled-in. 78% of the dentists and 37% of the prosthetists know the disinfection protocol of reusable instrumentation. 80.3% of the dentists and 74.1% of the prosthetists disinfect their prosthetic work but with varying percentages according to the group of items (impressions, prosthesis, etc.). 71.5% of the practitioners and 18.5% of the technicians disinfect their laboratory instruments systematically. However, 45% of the dentists and 54% of the prosthetists think they are not exposed to infections. Discussion: The results showed an insufficient level of knowledge and compliance to ensure asepsis of the prosthetic work both in the public and private sectors, contributing to a relatively high level of exposure to infections compared to a Canadian study. Conclusion: Given the insufficient compliance and in order to remedy these deficiencies, a simple decontamination protocol is suggested. Improving awareness and providing continuous training are then required.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".