Clinical Research Associates

Introduction to Ultrasonic Cleaner Comparison
Ultrasonic Cleaner Comparison - August 1997

Results - Ultrasonic Cleaner Comparison
Click on Images to Enlarge

	Graph 1. Cleaning one rod for 3 minutes & 10 minutes. Three tests done for each cleaner. Results: 90% enzyme removal was set as the standard needed to be declared clean for all enzyme tests. All cleaners cleaned adequately when run long enough. 10 minutes was adequate for all cleaners except the Old Oxy-Sonic (control) and the ULTRAsonik 28X. When the time was reduced to 3 minutes only the SweepZone (using both a plastic & metal tray), Sonic IV, and the ULTRAsonik 28B achieved a 90% cleaning level
	Graph 2. Cleaning one rod over a 10 minute period. Three tests were run for each of the following minutes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, & 10. (The curves were curve fit for ease of reading the graph and may not actually reflect exact test results.) Results: A definite break occurred between the top 5 cleaners & the bottom 7 cleaners at approximately 2-4 minutes. The top group cleaned 85-95% at 2-4 minutes, whereas the bottom group cleaned only 45-65% at 2 minutes & increased to 45-85% at 4 minutes. With time, however; the differences between the two groups of cleaners were erased except for the Old Oxy-Sonic (Control) & the ULTRAsonik 28X.
	Graph 3. Cleaning five rods for 10 minutes. Five runs for each cleaner. Results: Only two cleaners did not clean to the 90% level when five rods were cleaned for 10 minutes. They were the BioSonic UC100 & the Old Oxy-Sonic (Control). The others all cleaned better than the 90% cleaning standard. There was no statistical difference when cleaning with a plastic tray vs. metal tray. In conclusion, as long as you clean instruments long enough any cleaner will do the job, however; some do the job quicker.
	Graph 4. Cleaning 25 instruments. All cleaners were tested using 25 instruments in the bath. Three tests were run for 1, 3, 5, 7, & 10 minutes. This was to see if there was a difference due to load size in the quicker cleaning machines. Results: When cleaning 25 rods the top cleaners continued to clean well but there was very little difference between the cleaners (3 overlapping statistical groups). All the cleaners, except the old Oxy-Sonic (Control) & the BioSonic UC100, still reached the 90% standard by 10 minutes. In comparison, in the One Rod testing, a definite break occurred between the top 5 cleaners and the bottom 7 cleaners at approximately 2-4 minutes. The SweepZone claimed to adjust to compensate for larger loads. It doesn't seem to make a difference in the long run.
	Graph 5. Cleaning 100 instruments. The top 5 cleaners (See "One Rod Test" above.) were tested using 100 instruments in the bath. Three tests were run for 1, 3, 5, 7, & 10 minutes. This was to see if there was a difference due to load size in the quicker cleaning machines. A few of the lower ranked machines are included for comparison only. Results: Overall no difference was seen when cleaning 100 rods compared to cleaning 25 rods in the shorter time periods. The only difference seen existed at 10 minutes. When cleaning 25 rods 90% plus cleaning is achieved in 10 minutes for most cleaners. When cleaning 100 rods the cleaning drops off to 85% for most cleaners at 10 minutes. Time must be lengthened to 15 minutes to achieve 90% cleaning for most cleaners.
	Graph 6. Trends of Cleaning More Instruments. The top 5 cleaners were compared along with a few of the lower ranked machines. This graph shows the trends that occur when cleaning an increasing load of instruments for 10 minutes. Testing was done on 1 rod, 5 rods, 25 rods, 50 rods, and 100 rods. Results: Most cleaners cleaned well regardless of the number of instruments. All cleaners dropped slightly in efficency with loads of 50 and 100 instruments. Cleaners that dropped in cleaning ability were the Old Oxy-Sonic (Control), and to a small degree the Sonix IV.
	Graph 7. Aluminum Foil Test. All machines tested using 3 pieces of aluminum foil spaced at 1/4, 1/2, & 3/4 positions across the cleaner. The foil was cut to be the same ratio of foil to cleaner area for each cleaner. Tested at 1, 2, 3, 6, & 9 minutes. Results: Three machines are grouped in the top of this test; the ULTRAsonik 28B, Health-Sonics, and SweepZone. This related to cleaning speed results found in other tests. This test can be a quick method that dentists can use to test the cleaning ability of their cleaner.
	Graph 8. How various cleaning solutions (liquids, powders, and tablets) affect cleaning. The Health Sonics Ultrasonic Cleaner was used for all tests. Results: Overall, solution type was not important when cleaning 5 rods for 10 minutes. In fact, tap water is as good as Cavicide. The determining factor for the use of a solution should be cost.
	Graph 9. The phosphate level of all the cleaning solutions was assayed. Test was repeated three times. Results: IMS Daily Clean and BioSon both contained measurable amounts of phosphate. However, these numbers relate to only 0.022% for Daily Clean and 0.08% for UltraDose which is quite low.
	Graph 10. Cleaning 5 rods while using cassettes vs. 5 rods using a basket. (See 5 Rod Data.) One run was done in each cleaner for each cassette resulting in 4 runs per cleaner. Results: Cleaning with a cassette did not adversely affect the overall cleaning ability of the cleaners. Only three cleaners were statistically different when using cassettes vs. trays. They were the Old Oxy-Sonic (Control), the PRO-SONIC 1000, & the Sonix IV. These cleaners, when using cassettes, did not clean as well statistically as a tray. However, the PRO-SONIC 1000 & the Sonix IV still cleaned over 90% when using a cassette.
	Graph 11. Cleaning 5 rods while using cassettes in 12 different cleaners. Results: The Health Sonic and American Eagle cassettes cleaned statistically better than the Hu-Friedy IMS and C&T Med Systems LTD cassette. The top three cassettes all cleaned the instruments 90% or better.

Back to Top of Page

Copyright © 2004 Clinical Research Associates^®