logo
Guangdong Blue Whale Ultrasonic Equipment Co;Ltd 86--15007557067 michael@bwhalesonic.com
2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner 200W Heater For Dental Clinics

2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner 200W Heater For Dental Clinics

  • Highlight

    2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner

    ,

    200W Heater Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner

  • Tank Capacity
    2 Liter
  • Ultrasonic Power
    60W
  • Heating Power
    200W
  • Tank Size
    150x135x100mm
  • Unit Size
    180x170x180mm
  • Packing Size
    260×260×290mm
  • Product Name
    Ultrasonic Bath
  • Place of Origin
    China
  • Brand Name
    Whale Cleen
  • Certification
    CE, Roth
  • Model Number
    Z-S10
  • Minimum Order Quantity
    2 Units
  • Price
    Negotiable
  • Packaging Details
    Carton Box
  • Delivery Time
    Depend On Quantity
  • Payment Terms
    T/T
  • Supply Ability
    20000 Units Per Month

2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner 200W Heater For Dental Clinics

 
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: 
 

ModelZ-S10
Tank MaterialStainless Steel 304
PackageCarton Box
Tank size150x135x100mm
Unit size180x170x180mm
Carton packing Size260×260×290mm
Ultrasonic power range60W
timer0~30min adjustable
Frequency40000Hz
Tank capacity2 Liter
pcs/carton4PCS/carton
N.W.2.3 kg
G.W.2.8kg
Warranty1 year
CertificateCE Roth
 

 
Customer's Cleaning Feedback:
 
2 Liter Dental Ultrasonic Cleaner 200W Heater For Dental Clinics 0
 
 
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.