This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Reinthaler, F.F. Articles by Stunzner, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reinthaler, F.F. Articles by Stunzner, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Serological Examinations for Antibodies against Legionella Species in Dental Personnel

Hygiene Institute, University of Graz, Universitatsplatz 4, 8010 Graz, Austria

F. Mascher

Hygiene Institute, University of Graz, Universitatsplatz 4, 8010 Graz, Austria

D. Stunzner

Hygiene Institute, University of Graz, Universitatsplatz 4, 8010 Graz, Austria

Serum samples from 107 dentists, dental assistants, and dental technicians were examined with an indirect immunofluorescence test for antibodies to Legionella pneumophila SG1-SG6, L. micdadei, L. bozemanii, L. dumoffii, L. gormanii, L. jordanis, and L. longbeachae SG1 +2. Thirty-six (34%) employees from dental personnel from 13 practices showed a positive reaction for antibodies to Legionella pneumophila. Only five samples (5%) from a control group (non-medical workers) were positive. Of the 36 positive serum samples, 13 (36%) reacted with Serogroup 6, 12 with SG 1 (33%), 12 with SG 5 (33%), and three with SG 4 (8%), and eight samples were positive for antibodies to other Legionella species. Dentists had the highest prevalence (50%) of L. pneumophila antibodies, followed by assistants (38%) and technicians (20%). These results indicate that dental personnel are at an increased risk of legionella infection.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 67, No. 6, 942-943 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345880670061001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H G Rees World at work: evidence-based risk management of nail dust in chiropodists and podiatrists Occup. Environ. Med., March 1, 2008; 65(3): 216 - 217. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. K. Huntington, J. F. Williams, and C. D. Mackenzie Endotoxin contamination in the dental surgery J. Med. Microbiol., September 1, 2007; 56(9): 1230 - 1234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Schel, P. D. Marsh, D. J. Bradshaw, M. Finney, M. R. Fulford, E. Frandsen, E. Ostergaard, J. M. ten Cate, W. R. Moorer, A. Mavridou, et al. Comparison of the Efficacies of Disinfectants To Control Microbial Contamination in Dental Unit Water Systems in General Dental Practices across the European Union Appl. Envir. Microbiol., February 1, 2006; 72(2): 1380 - 1387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. G. DEPAOLA, D. MANGAN, S. E. MILLS, W. COSTERTON, J. BARBEAU, B. SHEARER, and J. BARTLETT A review of the science regarding dental unit waterlines J Am Dent Assoc, September 1, 2002; 133(9): 1199 - 1206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Monarca, M. Grottolo, D. Renzi, C. Paganelli, P. Sapelli, I. Zerbini, and G. Nardi Evaluation of environmental bacterial contamination and procedures to control cross infection in a sample of Italian dental surgeries Occup. Environ. Med., November 1, 2000; 57(11): 721 - 726. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. E. MILLS THE DENTAL UNIT WATERLINE CONTROVERSY: DEFUSING THE MYTHS, DEFINING THE SOLUTIONS J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2000; 131(10): 1427 - 1441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]