The effectiveness of a pre-procedural mouthrinse in reducing bacteria on radiographic phosphor plates

Abstract

PurposeThis study assessed the effectiveness of three antimicrobial mouthrinses in reducing microbial growth on photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates.Materials and MethodsPrior to performing a full-mouth radiographic survey (FMX), subjects were asked to rinse with one of the three test rinses (Listerine®, Decapinol®, or chlorhexidine oral rinse 0.12%) or to refrain from rinsing. Four PSP plates were sampled from each FMX through collection into sterile containers upon exiting the scanner. Flame-sterilized forceps were used to transfer the PSP plates onto blood agar plates (5% sheep blood agar). The blood agar plates were incubated at 37℃ for up to 72 h. An environmental control blood agar plate was incubated with each batch. Additionally, for control, 25 gas-sterilized PSP plates were plated onto blood agar and analyzed.ResultsThe mean number of bacterial colonies per plate was the lowest in the chlorhexidine group, followed by the Decapinol, Listerine, and the no rinse negative control groups. Only the chlorhexidine and Listerine groups were significantly different (p=0.005). No growth was observed for the 25 gas-sterilized control plates or the environmental control blood agar plates.ConclusionThe mean number of bacterial colonies was the lowest in the chlorhexidine group, followed by the Decapinol, Listerine, and the no rinse groups. Nonetheless, a statistically significant difference was found only in the case of Listerine. Additional research is needed to test whether a higher concentration (0.2%) or longer exposure period (two consecutive 30 s rinse periods) would be helpful in reducing PSP plate contamination further with chlorhexidine.

Perforation rate of intraoral barriers for direct digital radiography

“…There have been some studies that have shown the potential use of chlorhexidine gargle and gas sterilization for infection control. 10,12 In summary, this study proved that there are statistical differences in perforation rates according to the applications of the intraoral barriers. The use of a double barrier can reduce the perforation rate by more than half as compared with the use of a single barrier.…”

Quantitative measurements of aerosols from air-polishing and ultrasonic devices: (How) can we protect ourselves?

“…• antiseptic rinsing before treatment [19][20][21][22] • use of dental rubber dam [16,23,24] • high-volume evacuation (HVE) suction device [14,15,[25][26][27] or other dry-field isolation systems such as the "Isolite-system" [28] • Barrier protection: mask, glove, eye protection goggle, protection shield [29] • High-efficiency particulate air room filters…”

Retracted: Comparative Effectuality of Two Pre-Procedural Mouthwashes during Debonding - A Clinical Study

“…Free radicals released by hydrogen peroxide break the electron-rich alkene double bonds which are responsible for discoloration, resulting in stain removal. [6] The use of hydrogen peroxide as an adjunct to chlorhexidine has been found to be very effective in reducing plaque scores and in preventing the stain development. [7] Several studies have been conducted in the past on preprocedural rinsing using a variety of methods; however, so far, none of the studies have compared the efficacy of CHG and hydrogen peroxide in reducing the aerosolized bacterial contamination.…”