BACKGROUND: During oral procedures, microorganisms from the oral cavity may contaminate nearby surfaces. The authors evaluated the efficacy of a commercial preprocedural mouthrinse containing 0.05 percent cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) in reducing the levels and composition of viable bacteria in oral spatter. METHODS: The authors randomly assigned 60 participants receiving oral prophylaxis with an ultrasonic scaler to one of four groups: a preprocedural rinse solution containing 0.05 percent CPC, 0.12 percent chlorhexidine (CHX) or water, or no rinsing. Airborne microorganisms were collected on blood agar plates. The composition of the spatter was analyzed for 39 oral bacterial species by means of checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. RESULTS:CPC and CHX were equally effective in lowering the levels of spatter bacteria and performed better than water and no rinsing (P < .05, Kruskal-Wallis test). The composition of the spatter from the control groups showed higher proportions (P < .05, Kruskal-Wallis test) of Fusobacterium species and lower proportions of Capnocytophaga species when compared with the spatter from the CPC and CHX groups. CONCLUSION: A commercial mouthrinse containing 0.05 percent CPC when used as a preprocedural mouthrinse was equally effective as CHX in reducing the levels of spatter bacteria generated during ultrasonic scaling. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Owing to its strong antibacterial effect and the fact that it has fewer side effects than CHX, a solution containing 0.05 percent CPC may be a good alternative to that containing 0.12 CHX as a preprocedural mouthrinse used to help decrease the level of contamination in spatter.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: During oral procedures, microorganisms from the oral cavity may contaminate nearby surfaces. The authors evaluated the efficacy of a commercial preprocedural mouthrinse containing 0.05 percent cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) in reducing the levels and composition of viable bacteria in oral spatter. METHODS: The authors randomly assigned 60 participants receiving oral prophylaxis with an ultrasonic scaler to one of four groups: a preprocedural rinse solution containing 0.05 percent CPC, 0.12 percent chlorhexidine (CHX) or water, or no rinsing. Airborne microorganisms were collected on blood agar plates. The composition of the spatter was analyzed for 39 oral bacterial species by means of checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. RESULTS:CPC and CHX were equally effective in lowering the levels of spatter bacteria and performed better than water and no rinsing (P < .05, Kruskal-Wallis test). The composition of the spatter from the control groups showed higher proportions (P < .05, Kruskal-Wallis test) of Fusobacterium species and lower proportions of Capnocytophaga species when compared with the spatter from the CPC and CHX groups. CONCLUSION: A commercial mouthrinse containing 0.05 percent CPC when used as a preprocedural mouthrinse was equally effective as CHX in reducing the levels of spatter bacteria generated during ultrasonic scaling. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Owing to its strong antibacterial effect and the fact that it has fewer side effects than CHX, a solution containing 0.05 percent CPC may be a good alternative to that containing 0.12 CHX as a preprocedural mouthrinse used to help decrease the level of contamination in spatter.