الفهرس 
TitleOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 109 |  |  |
| | | from | 109 | | |
Abstract
The work of dental technicians represents a great risk of occupational hazards, this risk may increase due to inadequate working conditions in dental laboratories and improper protection of the staff. Also in contrast to dental clinic, the dental labs are often overlooked when planning effective infection control and exposure control measures resulting in a non-safe work environment for dental technicians.
Therefore the purpose of this study was to evaluate the awareness of dental technicians regarding the common occupational hazards and the safety measures in dental laboratories, and also to evaluate the environmental aspects of these laboratories.
This descriptive broad study included 30 dental technicians and was conducted in six different dental laboratories belonging to private, public, and educational sectors in Alexandria, Egypt.
The data was collected using two tools; a questionnaire and an observational check list. The questionnaire aimed to evaluate the knowledge regarding the common occupational hazards facing the dental technicians in their laboratories. Meanwhile the observational study targeted to evaluate the lab environment and some practice related to protective measures.
Analysis of results
I-Results of Questionnaire revealed that;
1- A 70% of participants were males and 30% were females, and about 90% had moderate educational level while only 10% had a university degree. A 50% of participants belong to educational laboratory sector, the rest were from public (33.3%) and private (16.7%) sectors.
2- The knowledge of the technicians concerning the biological hazards was measured by several variables. It was found that the highest knowledge was about the BBI (96.7%), followed by skin infection (76.7%), and the least one was regarding respiratory infection (66.7%).
3- The knowledge of physical hazards was 93.3%, 80%, 73.3% and 36.7% regarding skin injuries, thermal hazards, eye injuries and noise respectively, while their knowledge about radiation hazard was nil.
4- The knowledge of chemical hazards was high; (86.7% and 76.7%) for gases and dusts inhalation respectively, but low for chemical burns (36.7%)
5- The knowledge concerning psychological hazards was moderate (about 60%).
6- More than half of technicians (53.3%) admitted that they are immunized against hepatitis B virus.
7- All technicians (100%) know that there is communication between the dental clinic and the dental laboratory concerning disinfection of dental impressions, however only 13.3% registered that they had written documentation of the disinfection method for incoming and outgoing items.
8- The knowledge of lab workers about risk assessment, emergency facilities and hazardous substances inventory was assessed by different parameters and the results ranged from 0% to 46.7%, from 3.3% to 80% , and from 10% to 26.6% respectively
Summary and Conclusion
60
II-Results of the observational study revealed that:
1- Regarding the laboratories design and disinfection procedures :
A- No separate receiving area was found in the 6 dental labs where disinfection process for incoming items could be carried out.
B- Fifty percent of dental labs (3 labs) receive already disinfected items and prosthesis (disinfection is carried out in dental clinic). The dental technicians in the other 3 laboratories disinfect the items and prosthesis in their laboratories and they use EPA registered disinfectants (chlorine compounds, alcohol, glutaraldehyde).In addition the cleaning of dental items is carried out in one lab (private) using ultrasonic cleaner while in the other 2 labs by manual cleaning and proper friction.
C- Although all the dental technicians in the 6 labs commit with the policy of hand washing, yet only one lab (educational ) is provided with two sinks; one for hand washing and the other for cleaning of dental items and prosthesis while the other 5 labs had only one sink for both procedures.
2- Regarding the laboratories environments;
A- Effective general ventilation was observed in 5 out of the 6 labs where the windows are used as primary source for natural ventilation. In addition 2 laboratories (one public and one private) use unit air conditioning system as secondary source for ventilation. The use of local exhaust ventilation system (the suction system) was not present in the 6 labs examined.
B- The light condition (natural and electrical) was appropriate in all the 6 labs except one private lab. The work surfaces and floors were in good condition in 4 labs, and the general environmental cleanliness was good in all labs.
C- Lab space was wide in one lab (educational), also the same lab use surface barriers to reduce the need for cleaning and disinfection.
3- Regarding the use of personal protective equipment:
The latex gloves and lab coat were used in 6 and 5 labs respectively, but the surgical mask and protective eye wear were only available in 3 labs.
On the other hand, the dust mask, chemical, and thermal isolation gloves and ear plug were not available in all the 6 labs included in the study. Also the dust containing appliances were not available in all the 6 labs (dust collector, computer technologies, measuring air pollution devices, personal sampler device). In addition only one educational lab used box gloves appliances.
4- Regarding guidelines to waste management; it was observed that only 3 labs manage waste according to applicable local regulation and segregate waste as clinical and non-clinical. Meanwhile the puncture resistant container was only available in one lab (educational).
5- The storage conditions was not compliant with MSDS recommendations in all 6 labs examined . Mixing of chemicals within the storage area was done in all labs except one lab (public) and proper labeling of stored containers with hazardous substances was done in proper way only in 4 labs.