C Beneduce1, K A Baxter, J Bowman, M Haines, S Andreana. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University at Buffalo, School of Dental Medicine, 235 Squire Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States. dental.research@hotmail.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study evaluated the antibacterial effect of VIOlight (VL) Personal Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer on biofilms after toothbrush exposure to human saliva compared to Listerine Antiseptic (LA), 3% hydrogen peroxide (3%HP) and water. METHODS: Twenty toothbrush heads (n=5/Gp) were immersed in saliva and to allow for bacterial growth and biofilm formation for 24h. VL sanitizer and antiseptic(s) were used for 7 min; after treatment, brush heads were rinsed and placed into 10 mL of 2x AOAC Letheen Broth, sonicated and vortexed for 10s. Tenfold serial dilutions were prepared and plated and incubated aerobically and anaerobically. Log(10)CFU/mL data were compared utilizing ANOVA (p<0.05). RESULTS: Results showed 3%HP with significantly lower counts than LA, VL and control for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. LA had significantly lower counts than VL and control for both types of bacteria and VIOlight had significantly lower counts than the control for aerobic bacteria. 3%HP and LA were most effective in rapidly killing bacteria when compared to VIOlight. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that 3% hydrogen peroxide was most effective in reducing the numbers of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria present on the toothbrush heads. Under the same test conditions, Listerine Antiseptic was shown to be secondarily effective for the same bacteria while the VIOlight unit was the least effective when compared to the other treatment groups. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: The study evaluated the antibacterial effect of VIOlight (VL) Personal Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer on biofilms after toothbrush exposure to human saliva compared to Listerine Antiseptic (LA), 3% hydrogen peroxide (3%HP) and water. METHODS: Twenty toothbrush heads (n=5/Gp) were immersed in saliva and to allow for bacterial growth and biofilm formation for 24h. VL sanitizer and antiseptic(s) were used for 7 min; after treatment, brush heads were rinsed and placed into 10 mL of 2x AOAC Letheen Broth, sonicated and vortexed for 10s. Tenfold serial dilutions were prepared and plated and incubated aerobically and anaerobically. Log(10)CFU/mL data were compared utilizing ANOVA (p<0.05). RESULTS: Results showed 3%HP with significantly lower counts than LA, VL and control for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. LA had significantly lower counts than VL and control for both types of bacteria and VIOlight had significantly lower counts than the control for aerobic bacteria. 3%HP and LA were most effective in rapidly killing bacteria when compared to VIOlight. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed that 3% hydrogen peroxide was most effective in reducing the numbers of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria present on the toothbrush heads. Under the same test conditions, Listerine Antiseptic was shown to be secondarily effective for the same bacteria while the VIOlight unit was the least effective when compared to the other treatment groups. Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Ltd.