The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Compare the Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial Count in Dental Aerosol produced during Ultrasonic Scaling when used as a Preprocedural Rinse

Shamila K Shetty, Karanth Sharath, Santhosh Shenoy, Chandini Sreekumar, Rashmi N Shetty, Thomas Biju

Citation Information : Shetty SK, Sharath K, Shenoy S, Sreekumar C, Shetty RN, Biju T. Compare the Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial Count in Dental Aerosol produced during Ultrasonic Scaling when used as a Preprocedural Rinse. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (5):848-851.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1414

Published Online: 00-10-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses (chlorhexidine digluconate and tea tree oil) in reducing microbial content of aerosol product during ultrasonic scaling procedures by viable bacterial count.

Settings and design

It was a randomized single blind, placebocontrolled parallel group study.

Materials and methods

Sixty subjects were randomly assigned to rinse 10 ml of any one of the mouthrinses (chlorhexidine digluconate or tea tree oil or distilled water). Ultrasonic scaling was done for a period of 10 minutes in presence of trypticase soy agar plates placed at standardized distance. Plates were then sent for microbiological evaluation for the aerosol produced.

Results

This study showed that all the antiseptic mouthwashes significantly reduced the bacterial colony forming units (CFUs) in aerosol samples. Chlorhexidine rinses were found to be superior to tea tree when used preprocedurally in reducing aerolized bacteria.

Conclusion

This study advocates preprocedural dural rinsing with an effective antimicrobial mouthrinse during any dental treatment which generates aerosols, reduces the risk of crosscontamination with infectious agents in the dental operatory.

Clinical significance

The aerolization of oral microbes occurring during dental procedures can potentially result in cross-contamination in the dental operatory and transmission of infectious agents to both dental professionals and patient. It is reasonable to assume therefore, that any stratagem for reducing the viable bacterial content of these aerosols could lower the risk of cross-contamination.

How to cite this article

Shetty SK, Sharath K, Shenoy S, Sreekumar C, Shetty RN, Biju T. Compare the Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial Count in Dental Aerosol produced during Ultrasonic Scaling when used as a Preprocedural Rinse. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):848-851.


PDF Share
  1. Reducing bacterial aerosol contamination with a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1634-1639.
  2. Aerosol and splatter in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(4):429-437.
  3. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsing with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosols. J Periodontol 1992;63:821-824.
  4. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. Br J Cancer 1976;34:585-612.
  5. Recommended infection–control practices for dentistry. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. US Department of Health and Human Services 1993;41(No. RR-8):1-12.
  6. Reduction of salivary bacteria by preprocedural rinses with chlorhexidine 0.12%. J Periodontal 1991;62:649-651.
  7. Clinical and antibacterial effect of tea tree oil—a pilot study. Clin Oral Invest 2000;4:70-73.
  8. IN: Lindhe J, Thorklid K, Niklaus PL. Clinical periodontology and implant dentistry-4 edition (New Delhi); Blackwell, Munksgaard; 2003;p.464-493.
  9. Antimicrobial effect of tea tree oil (Melaleuca alternifolia) on oral microorganisms. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2000;110(11):125-130.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.