2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner 200W Heater For Dental Clinics

Product Specification

 
200W Heater 2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner For Dental Clinics
 
Why Do You Need Whale cleen sonic Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner?
 
ltrasonic cleaner and bath sonicator is one of the most important devices for any dental clinic. These devices are an ultimate solution for takingcare of all your cleaning needs pertaining to your dental instruments in a dental lab.
Dental tools and instruments which are used by the dentists regularly comes in contact with tissues, blood, saliva and other contaminants.
These medical tools and instruments are therefore important to get cleaned in an efficient way so that it does not pass any infection to the patients.
And here comes the need of ultrasonic cleaner for dental instruments cleaning which is one of the most trusted and highly recommended method for cleaning removing tissue, saliva, blood and other contaminants from the reusable dental instruments.
 
Data Sheet Of Z-S10: 
 

 
Customer's Cleaning Feedback:
 

 
 
Comparison of an ultrasonic cleaner and a washer disinfector in the cleaning of endodontic files:
 
Perakaki K1, Mellor AC, Qualtrough AJ.
The aim of this study was to compare the amount of residual organic debris on endodontic instruments that had been cleaned in either an ultrasonic bath or a washer disinfector prior to sterilisation. A total of 90 endodontic files of varying sizes were used to clean and shape root canals in extracted teeth and were then placed in endodontic file holders.
Test group 1 (36 files) were ultrasonically cleaned for 10 min and test group 2 (36 files) were cleaned in a washer disinfector. A control group (18 files) were not cleaned at all. Following sterilisation, all the files were visually inspected under a light microscope and scored using an established scale.
The results showed that both test groups had significantly less residual debris than the control group.
Comparing the test groups, the files that had been cleaned ultrasonically had significantly less debris than those cleaned in the washer disinfector.
The design of the instrument holder may have been a factor in this result. More research is needed into the use of washer disinfectors in the cleaning of small dental instruments that have a complex surface structure.
 
 
Evaluation of biological debris on endodontic instruments after cleaning and sterilization procedures:
 
AIM: To examine the presence of biological debris and the level of contamination on reusable endodontic instruments those were subjected to different cleaning methods prior to sterilization.
METHODOLOGY: One hundred and eighty endodontic instruments from eighteen dental practices were analysed. These practices used different decontamination protocols for reusable instruments. The presence of organic debris was detected by the use of Van Gieson’s stain. Forty-eight new stainless steel hand instruments were used as controls. The samples were examined by light microscopy.
RESULTS: Residual biological debris was observed in 96% of the samples. The mean value of maximum biological contamination was 34% in the group in which the instruments were brushed manually and immersed in alcohol, 25% in the group in which commercially available disinfectants were used and 5% in the group in which the instruments were cleaned ultrasonically.
There was a statistically significant difference in the mean values with respect to the cleaning protocol applied (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to clean endodontic instruments appear to be generally ineffective for the removal of biological debris. The best method was the one that included mechanical, chemical and ultrasonic cleaning of instruments.