F A Pitten1, A Kramer. 1. Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University of Greifswald, Germany. pitten@rz.uni-greifswald.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the activity of different mouthrinse solutions compared to sterile water and sage tea against aerobe bacteria in the oral cavity. METHODS: The extent and the duration of the salivary bacterial count reduction were determined using a uniform model that allows a direct comparison of the different products. In contrast to previous investigations the antimicrobial activity of the tested products was stopped by specific neutralizers immediately after sampling. RESULTS: The obtained results allowed us to classify four categories of mouthrinse solutions according to their antimicrobial properties: Products without any active antimicrobial effect (sterile water, sage tea, Fluomint-Lysoform), products with a weak and temporary effect that does not exceed a salivary bacterial count reduction of 1.5 log of colony forming units (cfu) immediately and 1.0 log cfu 1 h after application (hydrogen peroxide, Meridol, Listerine, Lavasept), products with a strong immediate effect (> or =1.5 log cfu) but no prolonged activity (Betaisodona solution, acriflavine) and finally products that exert a sustained effect of at least 1.0 log cfu 1 h after application (Chloramine T, Gurfix, Skinsept mucosa, Corsodyl, Dobendan, Octenisept). CONCLUSION: The method used in this investigation allows an easy and reproducible evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and may be part of a future test guideline for efficacy testing of antiseptics.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the activity of different mouthrinse solutions compared to sterile water and sage tea against aerobe bacteria in the oral cavity. METHODS: The extent and the duration of the salivary bacterial count reduction were determined using a uniform model that allows a direct comparison of the different products. In contrast to previous investigations the antimicrobial activity of the tested products was stopped by specific neutralizers immediately after sampling. RESULTS: The obtained results allowed us to classify four categories of mouthrinse solutions according to their antimicrobial properties: Products without any active antimicrobial effect (sterile water, sage tea, Fluomint-Lysoform), products with a weak and temporary effect that does not exceed a salivary bacterial count reduction of 1.5 log of colony forming units (cfu) immediately and 1.0 log cfu 1 h after application (hydrogen peroxide, Meridol, Listerine, Lavasept), products with a strong immediate effect (> or =1.5 log cfu) but no prolonged activity (Betaisodona solution, acriflavine) and finally products that exert a sustained effect of at least 1.0 log cfu 1 h after application (Chloramine T, Gurfix, Skinsept mucosa, Corsodyl, Dobendan, Octenisept). CONCLUSION: The method used in this investigation allows an easy and reproducible evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and may be part of a future test guideline for efficacy testing of antiseptics.
Authors: Peter M Vila; Chan W Park; Mark C Pierce; Gregg H Goldstein; Lauren Levy; Vivek V Gurudutt; Alexandros D Polydorides; James H Godbold; Marita S Teng; Eric M Genden; Brett A Miles; Sharmila Anandasabapathy; Ann M Gillenwater; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Andrew G Sikora Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 5.344