The potential for cross-contamination between patients in the dental operatory is a real and widely documented risk. WaterLase technology has the potential to reduce this risk.

Dental Drills Are a Potentially Hazardous Source of Cross Contamination

Dirty Dental Bur

  • 15% of "sterilized" burs and up to 76% of "sterilized" endodontic files carry pathogenic micro-organisms.1,2
  • Complex bur surface difficult to clean.
  • Autoclaving can fail to completely decontaminate burs.1

WaterLase is a Cleaner, Safer Dental Instrument


click to enlarge above image

  • Flawless, polished WaterLase tip surface cannot physically harbor debris or bacteria like abrasive surface of burs and files.
  • WaterLase laser energy has been shown to have bactericidal effect in root canals.3
  • WaterLase tips do not require contact with teeth to cut tissue, unlike dental drills which rely on constant contact to remove tooth structure.
  • Single-use, disposable tips vs. burs and endodontic files that may be re-used on multiple patients.
  • Virtually eliminates accidental "sticks" possible while handling contaminated burs.


1. Morrison A, Conrad S. Dental burs and endodontic files: are routine sterilization procedures effective? J Can Dent Assoc. 2009 Feb;75(1):39. Republished in: Tex Dent J. 2010 Mar;127 (3):295-300.

2. Smith A, Dickson M, Aitken J, et al. Contaminated dental instruments. J Hosp Infect. 2002 Jul;51(3):233-5.

3. Gordon W, Atabakhsh VA, Meza F, Rizoiu I, Stevens R, et al. The antimicrobial efficacy of the erbi-um, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser with radial emitting tips on root canal dentin walls infected with Enterococcus faecalis. JADA 2007; 138(7): 992-1002.

4. Smith AJ. Decontamination of dental burs. British Dental Journal 197, 623 (2004).

5. Whitworth CL, Martin MV, Gallagher M, et al. A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs. British Dental Journal, Vol 197 No. 10.

6. Bennett P, Grove P, Perera L, McLean I. Potential vCJD Transmission Risks Via Dentistry: An Interim Re-view. Presented to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Group (SEAC), 14th December 2007.

7. Bagg J, Sweeney CP, Roy KM, Sharp T, Smith A. Cross infection control measures and the treat-ment of patients at risk of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in UK general dental practice. Br Dent J 2001; 191(2):87–90.

8. Taylor DM. Inactivation of prions by physical and chemical means. J Hosp Infect 1999; 43 Suppl:S69–76.

9. Ingrosso L, Pisani F, Pocchiari M. Transmission of the 263K scrapie strain by the dental route. J Gen Virol 1999; 80(Pt 11):3043–7.

10. Adams DH, Edgar WM. Transmission of agent of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Br Med J 1978; 1(6118): 987.

11. Ito M, Ashoori M, Osuka S, Matsuyama M, Usami T, Kaneda T. International Conference on AIDS, Cross-contamination risks of invasive dental procedures using high-speed handpieces. Int Conf AIDS. 1994 Aug 7-12; 10: 185 (abstract no. PB0167).