Add to Cart
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:
Model | Z-S10 |
Tank Material | Stainless Steel 304 |
Package | Carton Box |
Tank size | 150x135x100mm |
Unit size | 180x170x180mm |
Carton packing Size | 260×260×290mm |
Ultrasonic power range | 60W |
timer | 0~30min adjustable |
Frequency | 40000Hz |
Tank capacity | 2 Liter |
pcs/carton | 4PCS/carton |
N.W. | 2.3 kg |
G.W. | 2.8kg |
Warranty | 1 year |
Certificate | CE Roth |
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.