Conceptual Design and Prospective Validation Framework for a Low-Cost Smart Device for Real-Time Monitoring of Dental Unit Waterline Quality in Resource-Limited Settings
Authors
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ernest Cook University, Uganda (Uganda)
Department of Electrical, Telecommunication and Computer Engineering, Kampala International University, Uganda (Uganda)
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ernest Cook University, Uganda (Uganda)
Central Examination Unit, Kampala International University, Uganda (Uganda)
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ernest Cook University, Uganda (Uganda)
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Ernest Cook University, Uganda (Uganda)
Article Information
DOI: 10.51584/IJRIAS.2026.11080090
Subject Category: Environment
Volume/Issue: 11/8 | Page No: 1244-1258
Publication Timeline
Submitted: 2026-08-26
Accepted: 2026-08-31
Published: 2026-09-10
Abstract
Dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) are a persistent water-quality concern in dental practice. Their small internal diameter, intermittent use and frequent periods of stagnation create conditions in which microorganisms can attach to tubing surfaces and develop biofilms. Once established, these biofilms can release microorganisms and particulate material into the water supplied to handpieces, air–water syringes and ultrasonic devices. For routine nonsurgical treatment, CDC guidance identifies drinking-water quality, expressed as a heterotrophic bacterial count of no more than 500 CFU/mL, as the relevant benchmark, whereas sterile water or sterile saline is required for surgical procedures. Conventional microbiological examination remains the appropriate means of determining microbial quality. The purpose of the monitoring concept developed in this paper is therefore different: it is intended to observe changes continuously and flag unusual operating conditions between microbiological tests. The proposed platform combines temperature, optical/turbidity, conductivity and hydraulic measurements with local data storage, alarms and optional wireless communication. Its design places particular emphasis on calibration, sensor fouling, hydraulic integrity, offline operation and validation against microbiological results.
Keywords
Dental unit waterlines; DUWL; biofilm; water quality; low-cost sensors; Internet of Things; ESP32; turbidity; electrical conductivity; real-time monitoring; resource-limited settings; anomaly detection; dental infection prevention; device validation
Downloads
References
1. O’Donnell MJ, Boyle MA, Russell RJ, Coleman DC. Management of dental unit waterline biofilms in the 21st century. Future Microbiol. 2011;6(10):1209–1226. doi:10.2217/fmb.11.104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
2. Coleman DC, O’Donnell MJ, Shore AC, Swan J, Russell RJ. The role of manufacturers in reducing biofilms in dental chair waterlines. J Dent. 2007;35(9):701–711. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2007.05.003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
3. Bayani M, Raisolvaezin K, Almasi-Hashiani A, Mirhoseini SH. Bacterial biofilm prevalence in dental unit waterlines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23:158. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-02885-4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
4. Kader CB, de Smidt O, Oosthuysen J. Water Quality and Biofilm Formation in Dental Unit Waterline Systems in Mangaung, South Africa. Int Dent J. 2025;75(3):2132–2149. doi:10.1016/j.identj.2024.12.025. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dental Unit Water Quality. CDC Dental Infection Prevention and Control. Updated May 15, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
6. American Dental Association. Dental Unit Waterlines. ADA Oral Health Topics. Updated May 31, 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
7. Szymańska J, Sitkowska J, Dutkiewicz J. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2008;15(2):173–179. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
8. Szymańska J, Sitkowska J. Bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines. Environ Monit Assess. 2013;185:3603–3611. doi:10.1007/s10661-012-2812-9. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
9. Ji XY, Fei CN, Zhang Y, Zhang W, Liu J, Dong J. Evaluation of bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines and use of a newly designed measurement device to assess retraction of a dental chair unit. Int Dent J. 2016;66(4):208–214. doi:10.1111/idj.12225. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
10. Szymańska J, Sitkowska J. Opportunistic bacteria in dental unit waterlines: assessment and characteristics. Future Microbiol. 2013;8(5):681–689. doi:10.2217/fmb.13.33. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
11. Singh T, Coogan MM. Isolation of pathogenic Legionella species and legionella-laden amoebae in dental unit waterlines. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61(3):257–262. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2005.05.001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
12. Uzel A, Cogulu D, Oncag O. Microbiological evaluation and antibiotic susceptibility of dental unit water systems in general dental practice. Int J Dent Hyg. 2008;6(1):43–47. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5037.2007.00269.x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
13. Sacchetti R, De Luca G, Zanetti F. Influence of material and tube size on DUWLs contamination in a pilot plant. New Microbiol. 2007;30:29–34. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
14. Pankhurst CL, Johnson NW, Woods RG. Microbial contamination of dental unit waterlines: the scientific argument. Int Dent J. 1998;48(4):359–368. doi:10.1111/j.1875-595x.1998.tb00697.x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
15. Carey CM, Mills SE, Vigil R, Aungst M, Favazzo L. Application of flow cytometry to analyze microbial quality of dental unit water. JADA Found Sci. 2024;3:100037. doi:10.1016/j.jfscie.2024.100037. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
16. World Health Organization. Water safety plan manual: step-by-step risk management for drinking-water suppliers. 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2023. ISBN 978-92-4-006769-1. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
17. World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda. Geneva: WHO; 2022. ISBN 978-92-4-004506-4. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
18. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5667-3:2024. Water quality—Sampling—Part 3: Preservation and handling of water samples. Geneva: ISO; 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
19. Camargo ET, Spanhol FA, Slongo JS, da Silva MVR, Pazinato J, et al. Low-Cost Water Quality Sensors for IoT: A Systematic Review. Sensors. 2023;23(9):4424. doi:10.3390/s23094424. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
20. Essamlali I, Nhaila H, El Khaili M. Advances in machine learning and IoT for water quality monitoring: a comprehensive review. Heliyon. 2024;10(6):e27920. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27920. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
21. Porteous N, Sun Y, Schoolfield J. Evaluation of 3 dental unit waterline contamination testing methods. Gen Dent. 2015;63(1):41–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
22. Wu M, Shi Z, Yu X, Xu Y, Jin X, Zhang L, Fu B. Disinfection methods of dental unit waterlines contamination: a systematic review. J Med Microbiol. 2022;71(6):001540. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.001540. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
23. Li C, Xin W. Different Disinfection Strategies in Bacterial and Biofilm Contamination on Dental Unit Waterlines: A Systematic Review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2025;23(3):516–527. doi:10.1111/idh.12899. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
24. Coleman DC, O’Donnell MJ, Shore AC, Russell RJ. Biofilm problems in dental unit water systems and its practical control. J Appl Microbiol. 2009;106:1424–1437. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.04100.x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
25. Alkhulaifi MM, Alotaibi DH, Alajlan H, Binshoail T. Assessment of nosocomial bacterial contamination in dental unit waterlines: impact of flushing. Saudi Dent J. 2020;32(2):68–73. doi:10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.07.003. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
26. Ji XY, Fei CN, Zhang Y, Liu J, Liu H, Song J. Three key factors influencing the bacterial contamination of dental unit waterlines: a 6-year survey from 2012 to 2017. Int Dent J. 2019;69(3):192–199. doi:10.1111/idj.12456. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
27. Fotedar S, Ganju S. Microbial contamination of dental unit water lines in H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla. Saudi J Dent Res. 2015;6:129–132. doi:10.1016/j.sjdr.2014.11.002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
28. Costa D, Girardot M, Bertaux J, Verdon J, Imbert C. Pyrosequencing analysis of bacterial diversity in dental unit waterlines. Water Res. 2015;81:223–231. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2015.05.065. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
29. Walker RJ, Burke FJ, Miller CH, Palenik CJ. An investigation of the microbial contamination of dental unit air and water lines. Int Dent J. 2004;54(6):438–444. doi:10.1111/j.1875-595X.2004.tb00301.x. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
30. Pankhurst CL, Coulter WA. Do contaminated dental unit waterlines pose a risk of infection? J Dent. 2007;35(9):712–720. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2007.06.002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
31. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 7027-1:2016. Water quality—Determination of turbidity—Part 1: Quantitative methods. Geneva: ISO; 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
32. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14971:2019. Medical devices—Application of risk management to medical devices. Geneva: ISO; 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
33. Umer F, Khan M, Khan FR, Tejani K. Managing dental unit waterlines: a quality improvement programme. BMJ Open Qual. 2022;11(2):e001685. doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001685. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
34. Ditommaso S, Giacomuzzi M, Ricciardi E, Zotti CM. Efficacy of a low dose of hydrogen peroxide (Peroxy Ag+) for continuous treatment of dental unit water lines: challenge test with Legionella pneumophila serogroup 1 in a simulated dental unit waterline. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(7):745. doi:10.3390/ijerph13070745. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
35. Pokhrel S, Pant A, Gautam R, Kshatri DB. Water Quality Monitoring System Using IoT. Journal of Innovations in Engineering Education. 2020;3(1):155–164. doi:10.3126/jiee.v3i1.34337. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
36. Scheid RC, Kim CK, Bright JS, Whitely MS, Rosen S. Reduction of microbes in handpieces by flushing before use. J Am Dent Assoc. 1982;105(4):658–660. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1982.0438. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
37. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 13485:2016. Medical devices—Quality management systems—Requirements for regulatory purposes. Geneva: ISO; 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
38. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-18:2020. Biological evaluation of medical devices—Part 18: Chemical characterization of medical device materials within a risk management process. Geneva: ISO; 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
39. Nishan RK, Akter S, Sony RI, et al. Development of an IoT-based multi-level system for real-time water quality monitoring in industrial wastewater. Discover Water. 2024;4:43. doi:10.1007/s43832-024-00092-y. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
40. World Health Organization. Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first, second and third addenda. Geneva: WHO; 2026. ISBN 978-92-4-012122-5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
41. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 62304:2006. Medical device software—Software life cycle processes. Geneva: IEC; 2006, amended 2015. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
42. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 62366-1:2015. Medical devices—Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devices. Geneva: IEC; 2015, amended 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
Metrics
Views & Downloads
Similar Articles
- Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste - Case Study in Cai Rang District, Can Tho City, Vietnam
- Youth Activism, Intentional Integration of Policies to Raise Awareness on Climate Change Action among the Youth
- Breathing Spaces: Environmental & User Experience in Dhanmondi and Zigatola Multistoried Apartments, Dhaka, Bangladesh
- Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Soil Quality in Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria
- Environmental Impact of Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Borgu Local Government Area