EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE

Gangavati, Rashmi; Suragimath, Girish; PİSAL, apurva pisal; Ammu, Asmitha; varma, siddhartha; ZOPE, Sameer

doi:10.7126/cumudj.514556

EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE

Asmitha Ammu, (Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad)

Siddhartha Varma, (Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad)

Girish Suragimath, (Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad)

Sameer Zope, (Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad)

Apurva Pisal, (Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad)

Rashmi Gangavati (Department of Oral Pathology, School of Dental Sciences, KIMSDU, Karad)

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal

2 0

Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 22 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 235 - 240 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.7126/cumudj.514556 İndeks Tarihi: 16-12-2020

EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE

Öz:

Objective: To compare and evaluate the effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate andcommercially available herbal mouthrinse in reducing aerosolized bacteria when usedas a preprocedural mouth rinse.Materials and methods: A total of 45 patients were selected and randomly dividedinto three equal groups. As the preprocedural rinse, patients belonging to group I,group II and group III rinsed with distilled water, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash(Clohex®) and herbal mouthwash (Hiora®), respectively, for 60 seconds. Aerosolsproduced during the oral prophylaxis procedure were collected on blood agar platesby exposing the plates to the patient’s and dentist’s chest area, and the plates wereincubated at 37°C under aerobic conditions for 48 h. The number of colony formingunits (CFU) in the aerosol were counted and statistically analyzed.Results: At both the locations the mean CFU were highest in Group I followed byGroup III and Group II. The 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash was superiorin significantly reducing the aerosolized bacteria during scaling, followed by herbalmouthrinse and distilled water (p≤0.0001).Conclusions: The results of the present study clearly indicate that preproceduralrinsing with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate was significantly more effective thanherbal mouthrinse in reducing the aerosolized bacteria during ultrasonic scaling.Therefore a preprocedural rinse can significantly reduce the risk for crosscontamination.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik

1. SwaninathanY.Thomas JT, Muralidharan NP. The Efficacy of Preprocedural Mouth Rinse Of 0.2% Chlorhexidine and Commercially Available Herbal Mouth Containing SalvadoraPersica In Reducing The Bacterial Load In Saliva And Aerosol Produced During Scaling. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2014; 7: 71-74.
2. Acharya S,Priya H, Purohit B, Bhat M. Aerosol contamination in a Rural University Dental Clinic in South India. Int J Infect Control 2010; 6:1-7.
3. Snophia S, M.Manimegalai, Uma S, Sopia: Comparison of efficacy of preprocedural rinsing with chlorhexidine and essential oil mouth in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosols- a microbiological study. Int J of Contemporary Dentistry 2011; 2: 1-6.
4. Bentley CD, Burkhart NW, Crawford JJ. Evaluating spatter and aerosol contamination during dental procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125: 579- 584.
5. Reddy S, Prasad MGS, Kaul S, Satish K Efficacy of 0.2% tempered chlorhexidine as a preprocedural mouth rinse: A clinical study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16: 213-217.
6. Saini R. Efficacy of preprocedural mouth rinse containing chlorine dioxide in reduction of viable bacterial count in dental aerosols during ultrasonic scaling: A double‑blind, placebo‑controlled clinical trial. Dent Hypotheses 2015; 6: 65‑71.
7. Gupta G, Mitra D, Ashok, Soni S Comparison of Efficacy of Pre- Procedural Mouth Rinsing in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaler: A Pilot Study. J Periodontol 2014; 85: 562-568.
8. Armitage GC. Periodontal diseases: Diagnosis. Ann Periodontol 1996; 1:37-215.
9. Deepa G. Kamath, Nayak S. Detection, removal and prevention of calculus: LiteratureReview. Saudi Dent J 2014; 26: 7-13.
10. Guntaas S, Kunal K. A Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of 0.2% Chlorhexidine with a Herbal Mouthwash as Pre-Procedural Mouthrinse in the Reduction of Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaler. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences2018; 2: 2-6.
11. Loe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. Prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand. 1963; 21: 533-551
12. Fine DH, Mendieta C, Barnett ML, Furgang D, Meyers R, Olshan A et al. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsewith an antiseptic in reducing 0viable bacteria in dental aerosol. J Periodontal 1992; 63: 821-824.
13. Logothetis DD, Martinez-Welles JM. Reducing bacterial aerosol contamination with a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 1634-1639.
14. Son WK, Shin SY, Kye SB, Yang SM. The effect of chlorhexidine on reduction of viable organisms in aerosol produced by ultrasonic scaler. J Korean AcadPeriodontol 2009; 39: 303-310.
15. Santos A. Evidence-based control of plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 2003; 30 Suppl 5: 13-16.
16. Yadav S, Kumar S, Srivastava P, Gupta KK, Gupta J, Khan YS. Comparison of efficacy of three different mouthwashes in reducing aerosol contamination produced by ultrasonic scaler: A pilot study. Indian J Dent Sci 2018; 10: 6-10.
17.Bhat N, Mitra R, Reddy JJ, Oza S, Vinayak KM. Evaluation of efficacy of chlorhexidine and a herbal mouthwash on dental plaque: An in vitro comparative study. Int J Pharm Bio Sci 2013; 4: 625-632
18. A M Khalessi, A R C Pack, W M Thomson, G R Tompkins: An in vivo study of the plaque control efficacy of Persica: A commercially available herbal mouthwash containing extracts of Salvadorapersica. Int Dent J 2004; 54: 279-283.
19. Swaminathan Y, Toby Thomas J, Muralidharan NP. The efficacy of preprocedural mouth rinse of 0.2% chlorhexidine and commercially available herbal mouth containing salvadorapersica in reducing the bacterial load in saliva and aerosol produced during scaling. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2014; 7: 71-74.
20.Rani KR, Ambati M, Prasanna JS, Pinnamaneni I, Reddy PV, Rajashree D. Chemical vs. herbal formulations as pre-procedural mouth rinses to combat aerosol production: A randomized controlled study. J Oral Res Rev 2014; 6: 9-13
21. Harrel SK, Barnes J and Hidalgo FR. Reduction of Aerosols Produced by Ultrasonic Scalers. J Periodontol 1996; 67: 28-32.
22. King BT, Muzzin K, Berry CW and Anders L. The Effectiveness of an Aerosol Reduction Device for Ultrasonic Scalers. J Periodontol 1997; 68: 45-49.
23. Woo Kyung Son, Seung-Yun Shin, BeomKye and Seung-Min Yang. The effect of chlorhexidine on reduction of viable organisms in aerosol produced by ultrasonic scaler. J Korean AcadPeriodontol 2009; 39: 303-310.
24. Purohit B, Priya H, Acharya S, Bhat M, Ballal M. Efficacy of pre-procedural rinsing in reducing aerosol contamination during dental procedures. J Infect Prev 2009; 10: 190-192.

APA	Ammu A, varma s, Suragimath G, ZOPE S, PİSAL a, Gangavati R (2019). EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. , 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
Chicago	Ammu Asmitha,varma siddhartha,Suragimath Girish,ZOPE Sameer,PİSAL apurva pisal,Gangavati Rashmi EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. (2019): 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
MLA	Ammu Asmitha,varma siddhartha,Suragimath Girish,ZOPE Sameer,PİSAL apurva pisal,Gangavati Rashmi EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. , 2019, ss.235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
AMA	Ammu A,varma s,Suragimath G,ZOPE S,PİSAL a,Gangavati R EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. . 2019; 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
Vancouver	Ammu A,varma s,Suragimath G,ZOPE S,PİSAL a,Gangavati R EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. . 2019; 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
IEEE	Ammu A,varma s,Suragimath G,ZOPE S,PİSAL a,Gangavati R "EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE." , ss.235 - 240, 2019. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
ISNAD	Ammu, Asmitha vd. "EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE". (2019), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.514556

APA	Ammu A, varma s, Suragimath G, ZOPE S, PİSAL a, Gangavati R (2019). EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal , 22(2), 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
Chicago	Ammu Asmitha,varma siddhartha,Suragimath Girish,ZOPE Sameer,PİSAL apurva pisal,Gangavati Rashmi EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 22, no.2 (2019): 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
MLA	Ammu Asmitha,varma siddhartha,Suragimath Girish,ZOPE Sameer,PİSAL apurva pisal,Gangavati Rashmi EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal , vol.22, no.2, 2019, ss.235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
AMA	Ammu A,varma s,Suragimath G,ZOPE S,PİSAL a,Gangavati R EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal . 2019; 22(2): 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
Vancouver	Ammu A,varma s,Suragimath G,ZOPE S,PİSAL a,Gangavati R EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal . 2019; 22(2): 235 - 240. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
IEEE	Ammu A,varma s,Suragimath G,ZOPE S,PİSAL a,Gangavati R "EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE." Cumhuriyet Dental Journal , 22, ss.235 - 240, 2019. 10.7126/cumudj.514556
ISNAD	Ammu, Asmitha vd. "EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MOUTHRINSES IN REDUCING AEROLISED BACTERIA DURING ULTRASONIC SCALING WHEN USED AS A PREPROCEDURAL RINSE". Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 22/2 (2019), 235-240. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.514556