Efficacy of 0.2% tempered chlorhexidine as a pre-procedural mouth rinse: A clinical study

Shantipriya Reddy, M G S Prasad, Sanjay Kaul, K Satish, Sabana Kakarala, Nirjhar Bhowmik, Shantipriya Reddy, M G S Prasad, Sanjay Kaul, K Satish, Sabana Kakarala, Nirjhar Bhowmik

Abstract

Objective: Our objective was to determine the efficacy of pre-procedural rinsing with chlorhexidine in reducing bacterial aerosol contamination during use of ultrasonic scaler and comparing the efficacy of water, non-tempered chlorhexidine and tempered chlorhexidine in reducing bacterial count in aerosols when used as a pre-procedural rinse.

Materials and methods: The study was designed to include 30 systemically healthy patients in different age groups. The patients were divided randomly into 3 groups (I, II, III) of 10 patients each to be administered with sterile water, non tempered chlorhexidine and tempered chlorhexidine, respectively, as a pre-procedural rinse. The aerosol produced by the ultrasonic unit was collected at 3° clock, 6° clock and 12° clock positions on blood agar plates within a range of 4 feet in all the three groups. The blood agar plates were incubated for 48 hours and the total number of colony forming units (CFUs) were counted and statistically analyzed.

Results: The results showed that CFU in group III and group II were significantly reduced when compared to group I with F=1084.92, P<0.001 (ANOVA). Also, CFU in group III was significantly reduced when compared to group II with P<0.001.

Conclusions: Pre-procedural rinse can significantly reduce the viable microbial content of dental aerosols and tempered chlorhexidine was more effective than non-tempered chlorhexidine.

Keywords: Aerosol production; colony forming unit; pre-procedural rinse; tempered chlorhexidine.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Diagramatic depiction of the study design
Figure 2
Figure 2
Microbial colonies formed on an agar plate
Figure 3
Figure 3
CFUs in group I (pre-rinse)
Figure 4
Figure 4
CFUs in group I (post-rinse)
Figure 5
Figure 5
CFUs in group II (post-rinse)
Figure 6
Figure 6
CFUs in group III (post-rinse)
Figure 7
Figure 7
Bar diagram showing CFU's
Figure 8
Figure 8
Scatter diagram showing CFU's

References

    1. Catuna MC. Sonic energy. Ann Dent. 1953;12:100.
    1. Konig J, Volkerr S, Kocher T, Bossmann K, Plagmann HC. Antiplaque effect of tempered 0.2% chlorhexidine rinse: An in vivo study. J Clin Periodontal. 2002;29:207–10.
    1. Zinner DD. Recent ultrasonic dental studies, including periodontia, without the use of an abrasive. J Dent Res. 1955;34:748–9.
    1. Trenter SC, Walmsley AD. Ultrasonic dental scaler: Associated hazards. J Clin Periodontal. 2003;30:95–101.
    1. Holbrook WP, Muir KF, Macphee IT, Ross PW. Bacteriologic investigation of the aerosol from ultrasonic scalers. Br Den J. 1978;144:245–7.
    1. Williams GH, 3rd, Pollok NL, 3rd, Shay DE, Barr CE. Laminar Air Purge of Microorganisms in Dental Aerosols: Prophylactic Procedures with the Ultrasonic Scaler. J Dent Res. 1970;49:1498–504.
    1. Flotra L. Different methods of chlorhexidine application and related local side effects. J Periodontal Res. 1973;12(Suppl):41–4.
    1. Williams GH, Pollock NL, Shay DE, Barr CE. Laminar air spurge of microorganisms in dental aerosols: Prophylactic procedures with the ultrasonic scaler. J Den Res. 1970;49:1498–504.
    1. Litsky BY, Mascis JD, Litsky W. Use of an antimicrobial mouthwash to minimize the bacterial aerosol contamination generated by the high-speed drill. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1970;29:25–30.
    1. Bonesvoll P, Lokken P, Rolla G. Influence of concentration, time, temperature and pH on the retention of chlorhexidine in the human oral cavity after mouth rinses. Arch Oral Biol. 1974;19:1025–9.
    1. Bennett AM, Fulford MR, Walker JT, Bradshaw DJ, Martin MV, Marsh PD. Occupational health: Microbial aerosols in general dental practice. Br Dent J. 2000;189:664–7.
    1. Gross W, Overman KB, Cobb PR, Brockmann S. Aerosol generation by two ultrasonic scalers and one sonic scaler. J Dent Hyg. 1992;66:314–8.
    1. Timmerman MF, Menso L, Steinfort J, van Winkelhoff AJ, van der Weijden GA. Atmospheric contamination during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontal. 2004;31:458–62.
    1. Muir KF, Ross PW, Macphee IT, Holbrook WP, Kowolik MJ. Reduction of microbial contamination from ultrasonic scalers. Br Den J. 1978;145:76–8.
    1. Walsh TF, Unsal E, Davis LG, Yilmaz O. the effect of irrigation with chorhexidine or saline on plaque vitality. J Clin Periodontal. 1995;22:262–4.
    1. Addy M, Moran JM. Clinical indications for use of chemical plaque control: Chlorhexidine formulations. Periodontal 2000. 1997;15:52–4.
    1. Santos A. Evidence-based control of plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(Suppl 5):13–6.
    1. Löe H, Schiött CR, Karring G, Karring T. Two years oral use of chlorhexidine in man. I. General design and clinical effects. J Periodontal Res. 1976;11:135–44.
    1. Kohlbecker G. Toxic impurities in chlorhexidine digluconate: Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1989;44:273–6.
    1. Jones CG. Chlorhexidine: Is it still the gold standard? Periodontol. 2000;1997(15):55–62.
    1. Fine DH, Mendieta C, Barnett ML, Furgang D, Meyers R, Olshan, et al. Efficacy of preprocedural rinse with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosol. J Periodontal. 1992;63:821–4.
    1. Logothetis DD, Martinez-Welles JM. Reducing bacterial aerosol contamination with a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:1634–9.
    1. Klyn SL, Cummings DE, Richardson BW, Davis RD. Reduction of bacteria-containing spray produced during ultrasonic scaling. Gen Dent. 2001;49:648–52.
    1. Moghadam BK, Drisko CL, Gier RE. Chlorhexidine mouthwashinduced fixed drug eruption.Case report and review of the literature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991;71:431–4.
    1. Flotra L, Gjermo P, Rolla G, Waerhaug J. Side effects of chlorhexidine mouthwashes. Scand J Dent Res. 1971;79:119–25.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit