Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 3;10(16):e35745.
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35745. eCollection 2024 Aug 30.

The effect of different types of water sources on dental unit waterline contamination: A systematic review and meta analysis

Ting Shuai  1 , Tianyi Shao  2 , Lijuan Yi  3   4 , Shuyu Han  2 , Maria F Jiménez-Herrera  4 , Zhiwen Wang  2 , Xiue Li  5
Affiliations

The effect of different types of water sources on dental unit waterline contamination: A systematic review and meta analysis

Ting Shuai et al. Heliyon. .

Abstract

To systematically review the effect of different types of water sources on dental unit waterline (DUWL) contamination. 5 databases were searched from their inception to December 23, 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the literature. The risk ratio (RR) was used as measure of effect size in meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for evaluating quality of the evidence. Meta-analysis was completed by RevMan 5.4.5 studies involving 561 water samples were quantified for meta-analysis. The results indicated that no significant differences were found in view of contamination rate (RR = 1.01; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.41; P = 0.96, I 2 = 62 %; GRADE low)and detection rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (RR = 0.78; 95 % CI, 0.15-4.13; P = 0.77; I 2 = 83 %; GRADE very low) between using purified water and tap water as water sources of DUWL. The available evidence suggests that there is no significant difference between purified water and tap water in controlling DUWL contamination. However, the conclusions need to be further validated through more randomized controlled trials with robust design and a large sample size.

Keywords: Contamination; Dental unit waterline; Purified water; Tap water; Water source.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The flow chart of study selection.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The results of risk of bias assessment.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The meta analysis of contamination rate of water samples from outlets.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The meta analysis of detection rate of opportunistic pathogen.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Spagnolo A.M., Sartini M., Cristina M.L. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines and potential risk of infection: a narrative review. Pathogens. 2020;9(8):651. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9080651. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blake G.C. The incidence and control of bacterial infection in dental spray reservoirs. Br. Dent. J. 1963;115:413–416. - PubMed
    1. Dang Y., Zhang Q., Wang J., et al. Assessment of microbiota diversity in dental unit waterline contamination. PeerJ. 2022;10 doi: 10.7717/peerj.12723. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ji X.Y., Fei C.N., Zhang Y., et al. Three key factors influencing the bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines: a 6-year survey from 2012 to 2017. Int. Dent. J. 2019;69(3):192–199. doi: 10.1111/idj.12456. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. O'Donnell M.J., Boyle M.A., Russell R.J., et al. Management of dental unit waterline biofilms in the 21st century. Future Microbiol. 2011;6(10):1209–1226. doi: 10.2217/fmb.11.104. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources