# Sterilization vs. Disinfection: What's the Difference Sterilization destroys or removes all microbial life, including bacterial spores, while disinfection reduces or eliminates pathogenic organisms on inanimate surfaces and devices without guaranteeing spore kill. The practical rule of thumb is simple: if an item will contact sterile tissue, a body cavity, or the vascular system, it must be sterilized. If it contacts mucous membranes or only intact skin, an appropriate level of disinfection is usually sufficient and often safer for the device material. That single distinction drives almost every real decision in a clinical reprocessing room, from how a dental handpiece is cycled to whether a flexible endoscope needs high-level disinfection or full sterilization. This article explains the microbiology behind the difference between sterilization and disinfection, walks through the Spaulding classification that governs device processing, compares methods on the criteria that decide real choices, and works through concrete scenarios. ## The Core Difference in Microbial Terms Sterilization is an absolute endpoint. The target is the destruction or physical removal of every microorganism on or in the item, including the hardest structures in microbiology: bacterial endospores. A spore is a dormant, heavily armored form produced by *Bacillus* and *Clostridium* species that resists heat, desiccation, radiation, and many chemical agents. A sporicide is an agent that can kill spores. Sterilization therefore requires a sporicidal process, sustained long enough and at sufficient concentration to overcome the resistance of a defined spore population. Disinfection is a graded endpoint. It targets pathogens on inanimate objects and is defined by what it reliably kills. High-level disinfection destroys all vegetative bacteria, mycobacteria (including *Mycobacterium tuberculosis*), fungi, and viruses, but it does not reliably kill large numbers of bacterial spores. Intermediate-level disinfection kills mycobacteria, most fungi, most viruses, and vegetative bacteria, but not spores. Low-level disinfection kills most vegetative bacteria and some fungi and viruses, with little or no activity against mycobacteria or spores. Three terms make the difference measurable. Bioburden is the population of viable microorganisms present on a device before processing. A log reduction is a tenfold decrease, so a 1-log reduction kills 90 percent of organisms, a 3-log reduction kills 99.9 percent, and a 6-log reduction kills 99.9999 percent. Sterility assurance level (SAL) is the probability that a single unit remains nonsterile after sterilization, conventionally expressed as 10⁻⁶ for medical devices. Disinfection efficacy is typically expressed as required log reductions against specific test organisms under a named standard, which is why a disinfectant claim without a standard behind it means very little. The mechanistic difference matters. Heat sterilization works by coagulating proteins and disrupting membranes throughout the cell, which is why moist heat under pressure is so reliable. Chemical disinfectants work by oxidizing or alkylating specific targets such as cell membranes, enzymes, or [nucleic acids](/blog/guides/nucleic-acids). A spore's dehydrated core, dipicolinic acid content, and multi-layered coat protect those targets, so a chemical that lyses a vegetative cell in seconds may need hours to inactivate a spore, if it works at all. That is the whole reason sterilization and disinfection occupy separate categories of [process validation](/knowledge/molecular-biology/process-validation). ## The Spaulding Classification Decides Most Cases In 1957, Earle Spaulding proposed a scheme linking the infection risk of a device to the level of processing it requires. It has survived for nearly seven decades because it is logical and easy to apply, as a modern review of 272 relevant publications confirmed [1]. The system remains in use by microbiologists, epidemiologists, manufacturers, and regulators, even though new pathogens, greater understanding of innate and adaptive microbial tolerance to disinfectants, and increasingly complex device designs have complicated its application [1]. Spaulding splits devices into three categories [2]: - **Critical items** contact sterile tissue or the vascular system. Surgical instruments, implantable devices, cardiac catheters, and items that penetrate skin or mucosa into sterile spaces all fall here. They require sterilization. - **Semicritical items** contact mucous membranes or nonintact skin but do not enter sterile tissue. Flexible endoscopes, bronchoscopes, nasopharyngoscopes, endocavitary ultrasound probes, and respiratory therapy equipment are typical examples. They require high-level disinfection at minimum, and sterilization when the manufacturer's instructions allow and the clinical setting warrants it [2]. - **Noncritical items** contact only intact skin or do not touch the patient directly. Stethoscopes, blood pressure cuffs, bed rails, and environmental surfaces fall here. They require low-level disinfection. The classification is a starting point, not a substitute for the manufacturer's instructions for use (IFU). The multisociety guidance developed by SHEA with ASGE, APIC, AAMI, AORN, HSPA, IDSA, SGNA, and The Joint Commission explicitly builds on the Spaulding framework and stresses adherence to IFUs, point-of-use treatment before sterilization or high-level disinfection, and monitoring of process effectiveness [3]. Each year in the United States, approximately 100,000,000 outpatient and inpatient surgical procedures involve a medical device or instrument contacting a patient's sterile tissue or mucous membrane, and each carries a risk of introducing infection [2]. That volume explains why reprocessing errors are treated as system failures rather than individual mistakes. ## Side-by-Side Comparison: Sterilization vs. Disinfection | Feature | Sterilization | Disinfection | |--|--|--| | Definition | Destruction or removal of all microbial life, including bacterial spores | Reduction or elimination of pathogenic organisms, with spore kill not guaranteed below sterilant-level use | | Microbial endpoint | Total inactivation. Target SAL of 10⁻⁶ for medical devices | Defined log reductions against specified test organisms, set by the standard used | | Activity against spores | Required. The process must be sporicidal | Not required at high-level, absent at intermediate and low-level | | Typical methods | Steam under pressure (autoclave), dry heat, ethylene oxide, vaporized hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen peroxide gas plasma, radiation, liquid chemical sterilants, filtration for fluids | High-level: ortho-phthalaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, hypochlorous acid, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid. Low-level: quaternary ammonium compounds, alcohols, phenolics, chlorine | | Spaulding category | Critical items, plus semicritical items when the IFU permits | Semicritical (high-level) and noncritical (low-level) items | | Validation basis | Biological indicators, physical and chemical monitors, SAL calculations, full cycle validation | Standardized carrier tests against defined organisms (for example EN 14485), plus in-use concentration and contact time checks | | Monitoring in routine use | Biological indicator every cycle or per policy, chemical indicator on every load, mechanical parameter records | Concentration monitoring, contact time verification, temperature control, periodic efficacy testing | | Material impact | Higher. Heat, moisture, pressure, radiation, or reactive chemistry can alter polymers, composites, and coatings | Lower but not zero. Alcohols, oxidizers, and aldehydes can degrade resins and cause dimensional change | | Typical turnaround | Longer, especially for ethylene oxide aeration | Shorter, which is why it dominates high-volume endoscopy | | Consequence of failure | Direct introduction of organisms into sterile tissue, often with high consequence | Mucosal colonization or cross-transmission, particularly via complex devices such as endoscopes | ## Sterilization on Its Own Terms ### Moist heat under pressure Steam sterilization in an autoclave remains the cornerstone of instrument reprocessing because it is fast, inexpensive, nontoxic, and reliably sporicidal [4]. The two standard cycles are 121 °C at roughly 1 bar above atmospheric pressure for about 20 minutes, and 134 °C at roughly 2 bar for a shorter hold, commonly 10 minutes in materials testing protocols [5]. Textbook cycles routinely cite 121 °C for 15 to 20 minutes and 132 to 134 °C for 3 to 4 minutes depending on load and packaging. The critical variables are saturated steam, complete air removal, and direct contact with every surface, which is why hollow instruments and wrapped sets need validated cycles rather than guesswork. Steam is not free of material consequences. Autoclaving at both 121 °C and 134 °C modified the mechanical properties of 3D-printed surgical guides in a study of SLA and DLP printing methods [6]. A separate in vitro study found that steam sterilization at 134 °C produced statistically significant dimensional changes in SLA-printed surgical guide resin, while 70 percent isopropyl alcohol disinfection was evaluated as the chemical comparator [7]. These findings do not argue against steam for metal instruments. They argue for material-specific validation before any heat cycle is applied to a polymer. ### Dry heat Dry heat sterilization uses hot air, typically 160 °C for two hours or 170 °C for one hour, and relies on oxidation and [protein denaturation](/knowledge/molecular-biology/protein-denaturation) over long exposure. It suits glassware, metal instruments, and powders that steam would ruin. Penetration is slower than moist heat, so loads must be loosely packed and validated. ### Ethylene oxide Ethylene oxide is a low-temperature alkylating gas used for heat-sensitive devices, complex assemblies, and items that cannot tolerate moisture. It requires tightly controlled humidity, concentration, temperature, and aeration time to remove residual gas. Its toxicity and flammability mean it belongs to industrial or well-controlled central processing environments, not benchtop use. ### Hydrogen peroxide systems Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and hydrogen peroxide gas plasma are low-temperature alternatives for heat-sensitive devices [4]. Plasma sterilization appeared among the methods compared for accuracy effects on 3D-printed implant guides, alongside hydrogen peroxide, glutaraldehyde, autoclaving, and iodophor disinfection [8]. The advantage is low temperature and no toxic residue. The limits are penetration into long narrow lumens and compatibility with moisture-sensitive materials. ### Radiation Gamma irradiation and electron beam sterilization are industrial processes used for single-use devices, tissue grafts, and biomaterials. They penetrate packaging and leave no residue, but they can degrade polymers and cross-link or fragment materials. A study of nanofibrous polyurethane scaffolds found that neither UV, gamma, nor electron beam radiation achieved 100 percent sterilization efficiency on the test material [9]. Radiation is therefore not a universal fallback for delicate constructs. ### Liquid chemical sterilants Liquid chemical sterilants such as glutaraldehyde and peracetic acid achieve sterilization only when the full contact time specified by the manufacturer is met, which can run many hours. Shorter exposures of the same chemical deliver high-level disinfection, not sterilization. That distinction is one of the most common sources of confusion in practice. ### Filtration Filtration physically removes rather than kills organisms and is used for heat-labile liquids, pharmaceutical products, and air handling. A 0.22 µm membrane filter is standard for sterilizing solutions. Filtration is sterilization by removal, and it only works for fluids and gases, not for surfaces. ## Disinfection on Its Own Terms ### High-level disinfection High-level disinfection is the workhorse of flexible endoscopy. It kills all vegetative bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi, and viruses, but not high numbers of bacterial spores. The classic agents are ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), glutaraldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, and hypochlorous acid. Each has a different compatibility and safety profile, and the choice matters clinically, not just in theory. A 2025 study conducted in the central sterile supply department of a tertiary hospital compared hypochlorous acid and ortho-phthalaldehyde in automated flexible endoscope reprocessors for flexible nasopharyngoscopes, covering 374 devices in the OPA group and 302 in the hypochlorous acid group. The hypochlorous acid group showed a significantly lower number of colony-forming units after disinfection, with a higher proportion achieving zero or low colony levels [10]. Both agents were run through the same standardized cleaning and disinfection protocol and the same reprocessor model, which makes the comparison unusually clean. Duodenoscope reprocessing has been the subject of randomized comparison of three high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures, a reflection of how much residual risk persists even when standards are followed [11]. The device's elevator mechanism and long lumen create soil-retaining geometry that challenges any liquid process. ### Intermediate-level and low-level disinfection Intermediate-level disinfectants, typically phenolics, chlorine compounds, and some iodophors, cover mycobacteria, most fungi, and most viruses but not spores. Low-level disinfectants, chiefly quaternary ammonium compounds and simple alcohols, handle routine environmental and noncritical device decontamination. Alcohols sit in a useful but limited niche. A 20-minute contact with 70 percent ethanol was among the techniques tested on nanofibrous polyurethane and did not achieve 100 percent sterilization efficiency [9]. Alcohol is an excellent intermediate-level disinfectant for clean, dry surfaces and small items, not a sterilant. ### The contact time problem Every disinfectant has a required contact time and a required concentration. In-use dilution errors, organic soil, and hard water all reduce effective concentration. A disinfectant that is visibly dirty or past its use life should be discarded, not topped up. Automated reprocessors reduce operator variability, but they do not eliminate the need to verify cycle parameters. ## Cleaning Comes First, Always No disinfection or sterilization process can reliably penetrate soil. Organic material protects organisms, neutralizes oxidizers, and blocks steam contact. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization [2]. This is not a formality. A wipe-based manual reprocessing procedure for endovaginal and transrectal ultrasound probes, tested under worst-case contamination with ultrasound gel, mucin, protein soil, *Enterococcus hirae*, *Staphylococcus aureus*, *Candida albicans*, and simian virus 40 as an HPV surrogate, brought protein and total organic carbon down to the required limits of less than 100 µg per instrument test field and less than 6.0 µg/cm² respectively. Only then did the combined cleaning and disinfection procedure achieve the log reductions required by European Standard EN 14485, including complete inactivation of SV40 [12]. That sequence illustrates why the answer to "sterilization or disinfection" is never simply a chemical choice. It is a workflow choice. Point-of-use treatment, transport in a closed container, thorough manual or automated cleaning, rinsing, drying, and only then the microbicidal step form one continuous process [3]. Skip a step and the final result is unreliable regardless of which method was selected. ## How to Choose: The Criteria That Actually Decide ### Material compatibility This is the most common tiebreaker. Heat sterilization at both 121 °C and 134 °C modified the mechanical properties of 3D-printed surgical guides [6]. Steam at 134 °C produced significant dimensional change in SLA surgical guide resin [7]. In a comparison of five sterilization and disinfection methods on digitally designed implant guides, autoclaving and iodophor disinfection caused the most pronounced color change, and the autoclaved guides developed visible cracks, while all groups showed measurable deformation [8]. Preformed pediatric crowns behaved differently again: no color change or fracturing occurred after any sterilization method, but crazing was highest in stainless steel crowns and lowest in zirconia [13]. The lesson is that material response cannot be predicted from the class of material alone. It must be tested for the specific product, geometry, and process. A process that is microbiologically perfect but deforms a surgical guide by a fraction of a millimeter has failed clinically. ### Device geometry and lumens Long, narrow lumens are the hardest geometry in reprocessing. The multisociety guidance devotes specific recommendations to high-level disinfection of lumened and non-lumened devices, to preparation at the location of processing, and to immediate use steam sterilization [3]. Endoscopes remain the emblematic problem because they enable minimally invasive procedures but are highly complex to clean and disinfect [1]. If a lumen cannot be brushed, flushed, and contacted by the sterilant or disinfectant for the full required time, the process cannot be validated for that device. ### Soil type and bioburden A device used for a clean procedure carries a different bioburden than one used on a colon or an abscess. Higher bioburden demands more aggressive cleaning and, often, a sterilization process rather than high-level disinfection. Blood, fat, and biofilm each interact differently with disinfectant chemistry. ### Turnaround time and inventory High-level disinfection is faster than most sterilization cycles, and it avoids the aeration time required for ethylene oxide. Where device inventory is tight, cycle time drives method selection as much as microbiology does. Immediate use steam sterilization exists precisely to bridge a shortfall, but it should be an exception managed under policy rather than a routine workaround [3]. ### Monitoring capability A process that cannot be monitored cannot be trusted. Sterilization is monitored with physical parameters, chemical indicators on every load, and biological indicators with defined frequency. Disinfection is monitored by verifying concentration, temperature, contact time, and periodic efficacy testing. A facility that owns an autoclave but never runs biological indicators is not sterilizing, it is heating. ### Toxicity and staff experience Disinfectant choice has an occupational health dimension. In the nasopharyngoscope study, staff subjective evaluation of the two disinfectants was among the outcome measures alongside colony counts, cleaning qualification, drying qualification, protocol compliance, and operational time [10]. Aldehyde sensitivity is a well-recognized occupational problem, and it drives many facilities toward alternative chemistries even when performance is comparable. ### Manufacturer instructions Where the IFU and a general guideline disagree, the IFU governs unless a validated alternative has been established. The multisociety guidance places manufacturer instructions for use alongside the Spaulding classification as a foundational consideration [3]. ## Worked Scenarios **Scenario 1: A stainless steel surgical instrument used in an open procedure.** Critical item. Clean, inspect, package, steam sterilize, monitor with a biological indicator, store in a controlled environment. No disinfectant-only pathway is acceptable. **Scenario 2: A flexible nasopharyngoscope used for outpatient examination.** Semicritical item. Manual cleaning, then high-level disinfection in an automated endoscope reprocessor. In the comparison described above, hypochlorous acid outperformed ortho-phthalaldehyde on post-disinfection colony counts in the same reprocessor platform [10]. Either is acceptable when the cycle is validated and monitored. **Scenario 3: A duodenoscope after an ERCP.** Semicritical by contact category but functionally one of the highest-risk devices in the hospital because of its elevator mechanism and contaminated channels. Randomized comparison of three high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures exists precisely because the margin is thin [11]. Many centers now use sterilization or enhanced high-level disinfection with supplemental processing. **Scenario 4: A transvaginal ultrasound probe.** Semicritical, and often reprocessed under time pressure between patients. A validated wipe-based two-step procedure achieved EN 14485 log reductions including complete SV40 inactivation under worst-case soil conditions [12]. The wipe is the delivery system. The validated sequence is what makes it work. **Scenario 5: A 3D-printed surgical guide for implant placement.** Sterilization is required because the guide sits against mucosa and the implant bed, but the polymer may not tolerate heat. In one comparison, autoclaving produced visible cracks and color change while plasma and other low-temperature methods preserved accuracy better [8]. In another, disinfection with 4 percent Gigasept was judged suitable for both SLA and DLP guides while autoclaving at 121 °C and 134 °C altered their mechanical properties [6]. Steam at 134 °C caused significant dimensional change in a separate resin system [7]. The correct answer depends on the resin and must be verified per product. **Scenario 6: Preformed pediatric crowns tried on multiple children.** These are reused and must be reprocessed between patients. In a stereomicroscope study, no color change or fracturing occurred across sterilization groups, but crazing differed by crown type, being highest in stainless steel and lowest in zirconia [13]. Selection should follow the crown material rather than a single house protocol. **Scenario 7: A decellularized matrix scaffold for tissue engineering.** Sterilization is mandatory for anything entering cell culture, animal experiments, or clinical use, but the process can destroy the matrix proteins and proteoglycans that give the material its function [14]. Here the choice between sterilization and disinfection is constrained by biological activity, and the validation route must demonstrate both sterility and retained function. ## Verification: How You Know It Worked Sterilization verification rests on three layers. Mechanical monitors record temperature, pressure, and time. Chemical indicators change color or form when critical parameters are met and are placed on or in every package. Biological indicators contain a defined population of highly resistant spores, usually *Geobacillus stearothermophilus* for steam and *Bacillus atrophaeus* for ethylene oxide, and are incubated after exposure to confirm kill. Biological indicators are the closest thing to direct evidence that the cycle reached the organisms it was designed to kill, and their use is emphasized in dental infection control reviews as a core quality requirement [4]. Disinfection verification is different. It relies on standardized carrier and suspension tests against defined organisms, on in-use concentration checks, and on contact time discipline. EN 14485 provides the framework used in the ultrasound probe study for bactericidal, yeasticidal, and virucidal efficacy, including a surrogate virus for HPV [12]. Post-disinfection colony counts, such as those used to compare hypochlorous acid with ortho-phthalaldehyde in automated endoscope reprocessors, give a direct measure of residual bioburden and are increasingly used in quality programs [10]. New technologies are entering both spaces. Electrostatic spraying, new sporicides, colorized disinfectants, no-touch room decontamination, continuous room decontamination, and new sterilization technology for endoscopes have all been identified as emerging options aimed at reducing patient risk, with *Candida auris* cited as a pathogen that stresses conventional approaches [15]. A broader review of conventional and advanced techniques concluded that combined technologies often outperform single methods [16]. ## Common Mistakes and Limitations 1. **Treating high-level disinfection as sterilization.** It is not. Spores survive, and for prion-associated or spore-forming contamination the difference is clinically decisive. 2. **Skipping cleaning to save time.** Cleaning must precede high-level disinfection and sterilization, and no chemical step compensates for retained soil [2]. 3. **Assuming alcohol sterilizes.** A 20-minute 70 percent ethanol contact did not achieve 100 percent sterilization efficiency on a nanofibrous polyurethane material [9]. Alcohol is a disinfectant. 4. **Assuming radiation or UV is a universal sterilant.** UV, gamma, and electron beam all failed to reach 100 percent sterilization efficiency on the same test material [9], and UV exposure reduced cell viability to about 70 percent of control after 72 hours of culture in contact with treated material. 5. **Ignoring material effects.** Autoclaving cracked 3D-printed guides in one study [8] and altered mechanical properties in another [6]. Dimensional change at 134 °C was statistically significant in a third resin system [7]. 6. **Using a single house protocol for mixed materials.** Crown crazing differed by material in the same sterilization protocol [13]. 7. **Mistaking theory for practice.** Among 222 dental undergraduates surveyed, all 182 respondents acknowledged the importance of sterilization and disinfection, yet only 3.8 percent were vaccinated against hepatitis B and awareness of autoclave sterilization stood at 78.8 percent [17]. Knowledge does not automatically translate into compliant behavior. 8. **Trusting a reprocessor without validating it.** Automated equipment reduces variability but does not guarantee efficacy, and disinfection efficacy in automated endoscope reprocessors remains influenced by multiple factors [10]. 9. **Overlooking device complexity.** The Spaulding classification was designed for a simpler device landscape, and modern endoscopes and complex assemblies strain its application [1]. 10. **Forgetting that sterility is a probability, not a certainty.** SAL is a statistical statement about a validated process, not a physical inspection result. Limitations of the evidence base deserve mention. Most comparative studies of sterilization and disinfection on materials are in vitro and use specific products, so results do not transfer automatically to another resin, alloy, or coating. Clinical outcome data linking a specific reprocessing method to infection rates are sparse for most devices. Individual device and patient situations require judgment from a clinician and an infection prevention team. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the main difference between sterilization and disinfection? Sterilization kills or removes all microorganisms including bacterial spores, while disinfection reduces pathogens without guaranteeing spore kill. Sterilization is an absolute endpoint measured by a sterility assurance level. Disinfection is a graded endpoint measured by log reduction against specified test organisms. ### When should I use sterilization instead of disinfection? Use sterilization for any item that will contact sterile tissue, the vascular system, or a normally sterile body cavity. That includes surgical instruments, implants, and critical devices under the Spaulding classification. Disinfection is appropriate when the item contacts mucous membrane or intact skin only. ### Does high-level disinfection kill bacterial spores? No, not reliably. High-level disinfection kills vegetative bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi, and viruses, but it does not kill large numbers of bacterial spores. Only a true sterilization process, or a chemical sterilant used for its full sterilization contact time, provides sporicidal assurance. ### Can I sterilize a device with 70 percent alcohol? No. Alcohol is an intermediate-level disinfectant. A 20-minute contact with 70 percent ethanol did not achieve 100 percent sterilization efficiency on a tested polymer scaffold [9]. Alcohol is useful for clean surfaces and small items but is not a sterilant. ### Why does cleaning have to come before sterilization or disinfection? Soil protects microorganisms and blocks contact with steam or chemicals. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization [2]. Without it, the microbicidal step cannot reach the organisms it is meant to kill. ### What is the Spaulding classification? It is a three-tier scheme that sorts devices into critical, semicritical, and noncritical categories based on contact with sterile tissue, mucous membrane, or intact skin, and assigns sterilization, high-level disinfection, and low-level disinfection respectively [2]. It was proposed in 1957 and remains in wide use [1]. ## Sources 1. [A review of Spaulding's classification system for effective cleaning, disinfection and sterilization of reusable medical devices: Viewed through a modern-day lens that will addresses future sustainability.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36963674/) 2. [Disinfection, sterilization and antisepsis: An overview.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37890951/) 3. [Multisociety guidance for sterilization and high-level disinfection](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40289578/) 4. [Sterilization and Disinfection: Ensuring Infection Control in Dental Practices](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40099062/) 5. [Effects of disinfection and sterilization on the dimensional changes and mechanical properties of 3D printed surgical guides for implant therapy - pilot study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31973705/) 6. [Effects of Disinfection and Steam Sterilization on the Mechanical Properties of 3D SLA- and DLP-Printed Surgical Guides for Orthodontic Implant Placement](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35631989/) 7. [Dimensional Stability of SLA 3D-Printed Surgical Guide Resin After Steam Sterilization (121 °C and 134 °C) and Isopropyl Alcohol Disinfection: An In Vitro Study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42041657/) 8. [Effects of sterilization and disinfection methods on digitally designed surgical implant guide accuracy: An in vitro study.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38808751/) 9. [Evaluation of Sterilization/Disinfection Methods of Fibrous Polyurethane Scaffolds Designed for Tissue Engineering Applications](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33142959/) 10. [Evaluation of the disinfection efficacy of automated flexible endoscope reprocessors for flexible nasopharyngoscopy: comparison of different disinfectants.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42395300/) 11. [Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28711629/) 12. [Manual reprocessing of endovaginal and transrectal ultrasonography probes: evaluation of a wipe procedure in comparison with an immersion procedure.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41325850/) 13. [The effect of sterilization and disinfection on the physical-mechanical properties of preformed crowns](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33885388/) 14. [Sterilization and disinfection methods for decellularized matrix materials: Review, consideration and proposal](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33732964/) 15. [Disinfection and sterilization: New technologies.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37890943/) 16. [Recent advances in sterilization and disinfection technology: A review.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36165840/) 17. [Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Undergraduate Dental Students About Sterilization, Disinfection, and Infection Control: A Questionnaire-Based Study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38826954/)