Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Colony Forming Unit Count on Aerobic Culture of Aerosol Collected Following Pre-Procedural Rinses of Either 0.2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate or 1% Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide During Ultrasonic Scaling: A Clinical and Microbiological Study

Shatakshi Srivastava, Vineet V Kini, Sneha V Waghmare

Keywords : Aerosols, Chlorhexidine, Chlorine dioxide, Colony forming units, Microbiology, Mouthrinses, Preprocedural rinse, Ultrasonic scaling

Citation Information : Srivastava S, Kini VV, Waghmare SV. Comparative Evaluation of Colony Forming Unit Count on Aerobic Culture of Aerosol Collected Following Pre-Procedural Rinses of Either 0.2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate or 1% Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide During Ultrasonic Scaling: A Clinical and Microbiological Study. J Contemp Dent 2018; 8 (2):70-76.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1225

License: CC BY-ND 3.0

Published Online: 01-08-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of 0.2% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and 1% aqueous stabilized chlorine dioxide (ClO2) mouthrinse as pre-procedural mouthrinses on colony forming unit (CFU) count from aerosols generated during ultrasonic scaling. Materials and methods: This prospective controlled parallel arm clinical and microbiological study done over a period of 2 months included 60 systemically healthy participants with no signs of gingivitis or periodontitis divided into 3 groups (1 to 3) with 20 participants each receiving CHX, ClO2 and normal saline as control respectively as pre-procedural rinses followed by collection of aerosols generated during ultrasonic scaling on agar plates kept at three positions namely patient (P), operator (O) and assistant (A) and incubated for 24 hours at 37oC. The CFUs were then counted and statistically analyzed. Results: Data for the inclusion criteria of plaque index (PI) for all 60 subjects (mean 0.5088 ± 09001) presented normal distribution (p = 0.200). The mean and standard deviation values of retrievable CFUs for all three treatment groups 1 to 3 at three positions of P, A and O were performed using one way ANOVA test with intergroup comparison between by Tukey HSD test. Highest reduction in CFUs was seen in CHX group followed by ClO2 followed by normal saline which showed least reduction in CFU counts. Conclusion: It was concluded that aqueous 0.2% CHX was more efficacious in reducing retrievable CFU counts when compared to aqueous 1% stabilized chlorine dioxide mouthrinse and normal saline when used as pre-procedural mouthrinses. Limitations: As only aerobic culture was done to assess the CFU counts, anaerobic culture would have added more value to the study as it can influence the retrievable CFU counts. Also, despite of best efforts to standardize the settings in dental operatory, there could be some degree of variability.


PDF Share
  1. Bentley CD, Burkhart NW, Crawford JJ. Evaluating splatter and aerosol contamination during dental procedures. J Am Dent Assoc. 1994;125:579-584.
  2. Micik RE, Miller RL, Mazzarella MA, Ryge G. Studies on dentalaerobiology. I. Bacterial aerosols generated during dentalprocedures. J Dent Res. 1969;48(1):49-56.
  3. Holbrook WP, Muir KF, MacPhee IT, Ross PW. Bacterial investigation of the aerosol from ultrasonic scalers. Br Dent J. 1978;144(8):245-247.
  4. 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);1-7.
  5. Sawhney A, Venugopal S, Babu GRJ, et al. Aerosols How Dangerous They Are in Clinical Practice. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR. 2015;9(4):ZC52- ZC57
  6. D. Gopalakrishnan, Ravichandra Juluri, J. Srihari, Vidya Viswanathan. Comparing the Efficacy of Two Mouth Rinses in Reducing Bacterial Aerosol Contamination. 2017;3(3): 066
  7. Purhohit B, Priya H. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsing in reducing aerosol contamination during dental procedures. J Infect Prevent. 2009;10:190-192.
  8. Feres M, Figueiredo LC, Faveri M, Stewart B, de Vizio W. The effectiveness of a preprocedural mouthrinse containing cetylpyridinium chloride in reducing bacteria in the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141:415-422.
  9. Purhohit B, Priya H. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsing in reducingaerosol contamination during dental procedures. J Infect Prevent. 2009;10:190-192.
  10. Paraskevas S, Rosema NA, Versteeg P, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden GA.Chlorine dioxide and chlorhexidine mouthrinses compared in a 3-day plaque accumulation model. J Periodontal. 2008 Aug;79(8):1395-1400.
  11. Saini R. Efficacy of preprocedural mouth rinse containing chlorine dioxide in reduction of viable bacterial count in dental aerosols during ultrasonic scaling: A doubleblind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Dent Hypotheses 2015;6:65-71.
  12. Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal Disease in Pregnancy. II. Correlation between Oral Hygiene and Periodontal Condtion. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964 Feb;22:121-135.
  13. Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in Dentistry: a brief review of the literature and infection control implications, J Am Dent Assoc. 2004;135(4):429-437
  14. Saini R. Chlorine dioxide: An ideal preproceduralmouthrinse in dental set-up. Eur J Gen Dent. 2015;4:113-116.
  15. Feres M, Figueiredo LC, Faveri M, Stewart B, de Vizio W. The effectiveness of a preprocedural mouthrinse containingcetylpyridinium chloride in reducing bacteria in the dentaloffice. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141:415-422.
  16. Muir KF, Ross PW, MacPhee IT, Holbrook WP, Kowolik MJ. Reduction of microbial contamination from ultrasonic scalers. Br Dent J. 1978;145:76-78.
  17. Wirthlin MR, Choi JH, Kye SB. Use of chlorine dioxidemouthrinses as the ultrasonic scaling lavage reduces theviable bacteria in the general aerosols. J West Soc Periodontol Periodontal Abstr. 2006;54:35-44.
  18. Drake DR, Villhauer A, Olson B. Bacterial activity of stabilizedchlorine dioxide against polymicrobial biofilms. J Dent Res. 2009;88:3417.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.