• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Theses and Dissertations
    • Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Theses and Dissertations
    • Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of TUScholarShareCommunitiesDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenresThis CollectionDateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsGenres

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Help

    AboutPoliciesHelp for DepositorsData DepositFAQs

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    IN VITRO ANTIBACTERIAL ACTIVITY OF 12 COMMERCIAL MOUTHRINSE FORMULATIONS.

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    TETDEDXMolina-temple-0225M-132 ...
    Size:
    438.9Kb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Genre
    Thesis/Dissertation
    Date
    2018
    Author
    Molina, Raul Sneyder
    Advisor
    Rams, Thomas E.
    Committee member
    Rams, Thomas E.
    Page, Lawrence
    Whitaker, Eugene J.
    Department
    Oral Biology
    Subject
    Dentistry
    In Vitro
    Mouthrinse
    P. Melaninogenica
    S. Salivarius
    V. Atypica
    Permanent link to this record
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/3291
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.34944/dspace/3273
    Abstract
    Objectives: Mouthrinses are widely used by dental patients in daily oral hygiene practices. However, claims of antimicrobial effects are often made by mouthrinse manufacturers without substantiation by laboratory testing on complex oral microbial communities, such as the dorsal tongue microbiota, which are readily exposed in vivo to mouthrinse solutions, and contribute to the etiology of oral halitosis (bad breath). This study employed a modified Kirby-Bauer zone of inhibition test to comparatively examine the in vitro antimicrobial activity of 12 commercial mouthrinse formulations on a mixture of three bacterial species frequently isolated from the human tongue dorsum. Methods: The 12 commercial mouthrinse formulations tested were 1.) Perio-Aid Treatment Mouthwash (Dentaid S.L., Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain; containing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride without alcohol), 2.) Paroex (Sunstar Americas, Inc., Schaumburg, IL; containing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate without alcohol), 3.) Peridex (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA; containing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate plus 11.6% alcohol), 4.) Perio-Aid Maintenance Mouthwash (Dentaid S.L.; containing 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride without alcohol), 5.) Halita Mouthwash for Halitosis (Dentaid S.L.; containing 0.05% chlorhexidine gluconate, 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride, and 0.14% zinc lactate without alcohol), 6.) Crest Pro-Health Clinical (Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA; containing 0.1% cetylpyridinium chloride without alcohol), 7.) Therasol (formerly from OraTec Corp., Manassas, VA; containing C31G complex of alkyl dimethyl amine oxide and alkyl dimethyl glycine plus 8% alcohol), 8.) Listerine Cool Mint Zero Alcohol (Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., Skillman, NJ, USA; containing essential oils 0.092% eucalyptol, 0.042% menthol, 0.06% methyl salicylate, and 0.064% thymol, without alcohol), 9.) PerioShield Oral Health Rinse (formerly from Sunstar Americas, Inc.; containing 0.2% delmopinol hydrochloride plus 1.5% alcohol), 10.) Listerine Cool Mint (Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.; containing essential oils 0.092% eucalyptol, 0.042% menthol, 0.06% methyl salicylate, and 0.064% thymol, plus 21.6% alcohol), 11.) CloSys Antiseptic Oral Rinse (Rowpar Pharmaceuticals, Scottsdale, AZ, containing stabilized chlorine dioxide without alcohol), and 12.) PerioMed Antimicrobial Oral Rinse (3M ESPE Dental Products; containing 0.63% stannous fluoride without alcohol). Streptococcus salivarius subsp. salivarius ATCC 13419, Veillonella atypica ATCC 17744, and Prevotella melaninogenica ATCC 25845, which are among the most frequent bacterial isolates from the human tongue dorsum, were grown on enriched Brucella blood agar, comprised of 4.3% Brucella agar supplemented with 0.3% bacto-agar, 5% defibrinated sheep blood, 0.2% hemolyzed sheep red blood cells, 0.0005% hemin, and 0.00005% menadione. Pure cell suspensions of each species were adjusted to a 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard (approximately 1.5 x 108 CFU/ml), and combined equally into a standardized mixture. Undiluted 0.1 ml aliquots of the standardized bacterial mixture were spread with sterile cotton-tipped swabs onto non- selective enriched Brucella blood agar culture plates. After inoculation, four 7-mm diameter cylindrical wells were punched into each of the culture plates and filled with 60 μl of one of the commercial mouthrinse formulations, or sterile saline as a negative control. The inoculated culture plates were incubated upright in anaerobic jars containing 85% N2-10% H2-5% CO2 at 37 °C for four days, after which the diameter of inhibition zones against the standardized bacterial mixture at each well was measured at three locations to the nearest millimeter with a Boley gauge. Differences in mean bacterial inhibition zones (after subtraction of the agar well diameter) among the mouthrinse formulations and sterile saline were evaluated using a one-way analysis-of-variance and a post-hoc Tukey honestly significant difference test, with a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. A P-value of < 0.05 was required for statistical significance. Results: Perio-Aid Treatment exhibited significantly greater in vitro antimicrobial inhibition than the other tested mouthrinse formulations and sterile saline, followed in descending in vitro antibacterial activity by Paroex, Peridex, Perio-Aid Maintenance, Halita, Crest Pro-Health Clinical, Therasol, Listerine Cool Mint Zero Alcohol, and PerioShield. Listerine Cool Mint with alcohol, Closys, and PerioMed were not significantly different from sterile saline in antibacterial in vitro activity. Conclusions: The mouthrinse containing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate plus 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride (Perio-Aid Treatment) exerted the greatest in vitro inhibitory potential against a combination of three bacterial species frequently predominant on the human tongue dorsum. Significantly less antibacterial effects were found with chlorhexidine gluconate or cetylpyridinium chloride alone, or chlorhexidine gluconate at lower concentrations in combination with cetylpyridinium chloride. The relative lack of in vitro antibacterial activity of mouthrinses comprised of essential oils with alcohol, stabilized chlorine dioxide, or stannous fluoride raises questions about their potential clinical effectiveness against dorsal tongue surface biofilms and oral halitosis.
    ADA compliance
    For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu
    Collections
    Theses and Dissertations

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
    Temple University Libraries | 1900 N. 13th Street | Philadelphia, PA 19122
    (215) 204-8212 | scholarshare@temple.edu
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.