Literature DB >> 12694428

Differences in antimicrobial activity of four commercial 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse formulations: an in vitro contact test and salivary bacterial counts study.

David Herrera1, Silvia Roldán, Isabel Santacruz, Sagrario Santos, Mireia Masdevall, Mariano Sanz.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the in vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of four commercial 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The in vitro antimicrobial activity test consisted in a modified contact test where 20 selected bacterial species were tested during 1 min with each test product. After the contact, the inoculum was cultured, and the results were expressed in terms of survival/resistance and the percentage of survival as compared to a saline control. The in vivo test consisted of a double-blind, randomized, crossover salivary bacterial counts study. 10 volunteers rinsed during 1 min with each tested product. Saliva samples were obtained before rinsing, and after 5 min, and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h. These samples were cultured both aerobically and anaerobically. Percentages of survival, in regard to baseline, were calculated for each time point. Comparisons among products were tested using anova and selected paired t-test.
RESULTS: The in vitro contact test showed no survival in any tested species with CHX+CPC, while three species (Lactobacillus casei, Streptococcus mitis and Peptostreptococcus micros) were resistant to the other three products. CHX and CHX+NaF demonstrated additional resistant species (three and four species, respectively). The in vivo salivary bacterial counts test showed higher reductions of CHX+CPC and CHX+ALC in aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, lasting for 5 h. Significant differences were detected at multiple time points, when these two products were compared both with the control and the other tested products.
CONCLUSION: Important differences in activity, among 0.12% CHX products, were detected by both in vitro and in vivo tests. The formulation with alcohol was more active than those without alcohol, excepting the formulation with CHX+CPC, in which the reformulation and addition of CPC not only compensate but rather increase the antimicrobial activity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12694428     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2003.00341.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Periodontol        ISSN: 0303-6979            Impact factor:   8.728


  20 in total

1.  Inhibition of de novo plaque growth by a new 0.03 % chlorhexidine mouth rinse formulation applying a non-brushing model: a randomized, double blind clinical trial.

Authors:  Carolina Mor-Reinoso; Andres Pascual; Jose Nart; Marc Quirynen
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-10-17       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  In vivo substantivity of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on salivary bacteria.

Authors:  Maria Consuelo Cousido; Inmaculada Tomás Carmona; Lucia García-Caballero; Jacobo Limeres; Maximiliano Alvarez; Pedro Diz
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2009-08-08       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Inhibition of Tongue Coat and Dental Plaque Formation by Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide Vs Chlorhexidine Mouthrinse: A Randomized, Triple Blinded Study.

Authors:  Seema Roodmal Yadav; Vineet Vaman Kini; Ashvini Padhye
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-09-01

4.  An in vitro antimicrobial activity of ten Iranian-made toothpastes.

Authors:  Mostafa Sadeghi; Shokrollah Assar
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2009

5.  Effect of hydrogen peroxide mouthwash as an adjunct to chlorhexidine on stains and plaque.

Authors:  Pravesh Jhingta; Ashu Bhardwaj; Deepak Sharma; Naresh Kumar; Vinay Kumar Bhardwaj; Sanjeev Vaid
Journal:  J Indian Soc Periodontol       Date:  2013-07

6.  The effects of three different mouth rinses in a 4-day supragingival plaque regrowth study.

Authors:  Feyza Ulkur; Tulin Arun; Fulya Ozdemir
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2013-07

7.  Chlorhexidine alcohol base mouthrinse versus Chlorhexidine formaldehyde base mouthrinse efficacy on plaque control: double blind, randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Oumkeltoum Ennibi; Leila Lakhdar; Amal Bouziane; Yahia Bensouda; Redouane Abouqal
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2013-01-01

8.  Safety evaluation of topical applications of ethanol on the skin and inside the oral cavity.

Authors:  Dirk W Lachenmeier
Journal:  J Occup Med Toxicol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 2.646

9.  Maximum inhibitory dilution of mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine and polyhexamethylene biguanide against salivary Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Andresa Piacezzi Nascimento; Juliane Maria Guerreiro Tanomaru; Fumio Matoba-Júnior; Evandro Watanabe; Mario Tanomaru-Filho; Izabel Yoko Ito
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.698

10.  Antibacterial activity of four mouthrinses containing triclosan against salivary Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Juliane Maria Guerreiro Tanomaru; Andresa Piacezzi Nascimento; Evandro Watanabe; Fumio Matoba-Júnior; Mário Tanomaru-Filho; Izabel Yoko Ito
Journal:  Braz J Microbiol       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 2.476

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.