Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 17;18(2):639–653. doi: 10.1007/s40201-020-00490-z

Table 3.

The effectiveness of VHP decontamination in the environment of the oral surgery office

Place of sampling Total number of bacteria Reduction R [%] Total number of fungi Reduction R [%]
before VHP after VHP before VHP after VHP
Surfaces: [CFU/100 cm2] [CFU/100 cm2]
Armrest of dental chairs 5.5 × 103 ± 4.6 × 102 8.5 × 101 ± 6.1 × 100* 98.45 2.3 × 102 ± 2.0 × 102 0.0 × 100 ± 0.0 × 100* 100.00
Wooden frames 2.4 × 102 ± 5.2 × 101 4.0 × 100 ± 2.0 × 100* 98.33 5.3 × 104 ± 8.6 × 103 3.3 × 101 ± 8.6 × 100* 99.94
Medical aprons 6.2 × 102 ± 9.1 × 101 5.0 × 100 ± 2.4 × 100* 99.19 7.1 × 101 ± 6.6 × 101 0.0 × 100 ± 0.0 × 100* 100.00
Air: [CFU/1 m3] [CFU/1 m3]
At the door 8.8 × 102 ± 5.8 × 101 0.0 × 100 ± 0.0 × 100* 100.00 6.9 × 102 ± 1.2 × 102 0.0 × 100 ± 0.0 × 100* 100.00
In the middle of the room 7.2 × 102 ± 9.4 × 101 0.0 × 100 ± 0.0 × 100* 100.00 5.7 × 102 ± 1.1 × 102 0.0 × 100 ± 0.0 × 100* 100.00

Mean ± standard deviation; *statistically significant difference between samples before and after VHP decontamination, ANOVA at a significance level of p < 0.05