A survey of sodium hypochlorite use by general dental practitioners and endodontists in Australia

Background: Sodium hypochlorite is used commonly as an endodontic irrigant, but there are no published reports that provide details of its use. This survey sought to determine the percentage of Australian dentists who practiced endodontics, whether they used sodium hypochlorite for irrigation, and the manner of dilution, storage and dispensing sodium hypochlorite used by both dentists and endodontists. Methods: All Australian endodontists and a stratified random sample of 200 general dentists in Australia were surveyed to address the issues identified above. Results: Almost 98 per cent of dentists surveyed performed endodontic treatment. Among endodontists, nearly 94 per cent used sodium hypochlorite for irrigation compared with just under 75 per cent of general dentists: Sodium hypochlorite use by general dentists was more common in Victoria and South Australia than in other States. An infant sanitizer (Milton or Johnson's Antibacterial Solution) was used by just over 92 per cent of general practitioners and by more than 67 per cent of endodontists. All other respondents used domestic bleach. One hundred and sixty four of the respondents (80 per cent of endodontists and over 90 per cent of general dentists) used a 1 per cent w/v solution. Ten practitioners used a 4 per cent w/v solution, five used a 2 per cent w/v solution and four used a 1.5 per cent w/v solution. Eighty per cent of the practitioners who diluted their sodium hypochlorite before use, used demineralized water for this purpose. The remainder used tap water. Only four practitioners stored sodium hypochlorite in a manner which risked light exposure and loss of available chlorine content. Conclusions: Sodium hypochlorite is commonly used as an endodontic irrigant and Australian dentists generally stored the material correctly.

Sensitivity of Helicoverpa armigera nucleopolyhedrovirus polyhedra to sodium dodecyl sulfate

Sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) is commonly used to extract polyhedra from infected cells and diseased dead larval tissues. It was found, however, that 80% of Helicoverpa armigera nucleopolyhedrovirus (HaSNPV) polyhedra produced via cell culture were damaged after 30 min of 0.5% SDS treatment whereas only 20% of in vivo produced polyhedra were damaged by the same treatment. Transmission and scanning electron microscopy revealed that the damaged polyhedra had lost their polyhedron envelopes and virions were dislodged from the polyhedrin matrix, leaving empty spaces that were previously occupied by the occluded virions. Up to 20% in vitro produced polyhedra were resistant to SDS and remained intact, even after a 24 h exposure to SDS. This sensitivity to SDS was observed across a range of cell culture media, including serum supplemented media. Electron microscopy also revealed that the inferior polyhedron envelope of in vitro produced polyhedra is likely due to poor interaction between the polyhedron envelope, polyhedron envelope protein (PEP), and polyhedrin matrix. The PEP gene was cloned and sequenced and mutations in this gene were ruled out as an explanation. In vitro produced polyhedra that were passed through insect larva once were resistant to SDS, indicating that a critical component is lacking in insect cell culture medium used for producing HaSNPV or the cells growing in culture are inefficient in some ways in relation to production of polyhedra. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.