A control study of the disinfection effect of chlorine dioxide air disinfectors in dental clinical rooms
二氧化氯空气消毒器对口腔诊室消毒效果的对照研究

摘要

目的 一种高纯度二氧化氯（ClO₂）空气消毒器对口腔诊室空气消毒效果的对比观察。方法 选取本院20 m²的2间口腔诊室，分为实验组55 例（用高纯度二氧化氯空气消毒法消毒）及对照组30 例（用静电吸附式空气消毒法消毒）。每日接诊后进行两组空气消毒，消毒前及消毒5 min、10 min、15 min、30 min及消毒后14 h（次日开诊前）分别进行空气采样及细菌菌落数（CFU）培养，并统计比较两组的空气质量合格率及CFU。结果 空气质量合格率比较中，2组消毒后的空气质量合格率均呈持续上升的趋势，且ClO₂组在消毒15 min后更快的实现100%的合格率。在各时间点上，组间均无统计学差异（P>0.05）。2组CFU比较中，消毒后ClO₂组在各个时间点的CFU均低于静电吸附式组，特别是在消毒15-30 min，组间有统计学差异（P<0.05），且消毒效果保持到次日开诊前。ClO₂组中，从消毒5 min CFU已显著小于消毒前CFU（P<0.05），且释放浓度始终在安全范围内（<0.28 mg/m³）。结论 口腔诊室内高纯度ClO₂可达到与静电吸附式空气消毒法相同的消毒效果，且消毒更快更高效。

Abstract

Objective Observation of the air disinfection effect of a high-purity chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) air disinfectors in dental clinical rooms.
Methods The 2 dental clinical rooms of about 20 m² in our hospital were divided into the experimental group (using high-purity ClO₂ air disinfection) with 55 cases and the control group (using electrostatic adsorption-type air disinfection) with 30 cases. Air sampling and bacterial colony-forming units (CFU) culture were performed before disinfection and 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 30 min and 14 h after disinfection (before opening daily dental treatment the next day), respectively. The air quality qualification rate and CFU were statistically compared between the two groups at different time points.
Results In the comparison of the air quality qualification rate of the two groups, the rate of the two groups after disinfection showed a trend of continuous increase, and the ClO₂ group reached 100% qualification rate faster than the control group after 15 min of disinfection. At each time point, there were no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). In the comparison of CFU between the two groups, the CFU of the ClO₂ group after disinfection was lower than that of the control group at all time points, especially 15-30 min after disinfection, and there was a statistical difference between the two groups (P<0.05), and the disinfection effect remained until the next day morning. In ClO₂ group, CFU after 5 min of disinfection was significantly lower than that before disinfection (P<0.05), and the ClO₂ release concentration was always within the safe range (<0.28 mg/m³).
Conclusion   ClO₂ can achieve the same air disinfection effect as the electrostatic adsorption-type air disinfection method in dental clinical rooms, and the ClO₂ disinfection is faster and more efficient.