Dental unit waterline testing practices: an 11-Year retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study examined the dental unit waterline (DUWL) testing practices of Saskatchewan dental clinics over a period of 11 years, with an emphasis on their responses after identification of high microbial levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental clinics (n = 137) aseptically collected samples of output water from their air/water syringes, handpieces, and ultrasonic scaler lines using Sigma-Aldrich® waterline test kits and delivered them to a quality assurance laboratory. Tests were incubated for seven days at room temperature, and those with heterotrophic plate counts > 500 CFU/mL were reported as failures. Statistical analyses were performed on a database containing 4,093 test results. RESULTS: =.52, p < 0.001) was found between clinics' DUWL testing frequency and failure rate. Only 7% of failed DUWL tests were followed up by collection of a subsequent test within two weeks, of which 47% still exceeded the 500 CFU/mL threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate an association between DUWL testing frequency and detection of unacceptable microbial levels, along with infrequent retesting and often-inadequate intervention after a failed test. This suggests the need for further efforts at the regulatory and educational levels to maintain adequate water quality during dental treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Procedural water can become contaminated in DUWLs and endanger patients. Regular DUWL monitoring and evidence-based interventions to treat contaminated systems are necessary to safeguard patient health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".