Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Hunter, Allison (Radiology Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, Georgia Regents University, College of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Kalathingal, Sajitha (Radiology Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, Georgia Regents University, College of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Shrout, Michael (Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Georgia Regents University, College of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Plummer, Kevin (Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Georgia Regents University, College of Dental Medicine) ;
  • Looney, Stephen (Radiology Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, Georgia Regents University, College of Dental Medicine)
  • Received : 2013.10.12
  • Accepted : 2013.12.04
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This study assessed the effectiveness of three antimicrobial mouthrinses in reducing microbial growth on photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plates. Materials and Methods: Prior to performing a full-mouth radiographic survey (FMX), subjects were asked to rinse with one of the three test rinses ($Listerine^{(R)}$, $Decapinol^{(R)}$, 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 $37^{\circ}C$ 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: The 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Kitagawa H, Farman AG, Scheetz JP, Brown WP, Lewis J, Benefiel M, et al. Comparison of three intra-oral storage phosphor systems using subjective image quality. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 272-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600532
  2. Stamatakis HC, Welander U, McDavid WD. Physical properties of a photostimulable phosphor system for intra-oral radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2000; 29: 28-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600497
  3. Matzen LH, Christensen J, Wenzel A. Patient discomfort and retakes in periapical examination of mandibular third molars using digital receptors and film. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 566-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.10.002
  4. Farman AG, Farman TT. A comparison of 18 different x-ray detectors currently used in dentistry. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99: 485-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.002
  5. Hayakawa Y, Farman AG, Kelly MS, Kuroyanagi K. Intraoral radiographic storage phosphor image mean pixel values and signal-to-noise ratio: effects of calibration. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 86: 601-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90354-7
  6. Kalathingal SM, Moore S, Kwon S, Schuster GS, Shrout MK, Plummer K. An evaluation of microbiologic contamination on phosphor plates in a dental school. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107: 279-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.05.025
  7. Kalathingal S, Youngpeter A, Minton J, Shrout M, Dickinson D, Plummer K, et al. An evaluation of microbiologic contamination on a phosphor plate system: is weekly gas sterilization enough? Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010; 109: 457-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.09.035
  8. Addy M, Moran J, Newcombe RG. Meta-analyses of studies of 0.2% delmopinol mouth rinse as an adjunct to gingival health and plaque control measures. J Clin Periodontol 2007; 34: 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.01013.x
  9. Stoeken JE, Paraskevas S, van der Weijden GA. The long-term effect of a mouthrinse containing essential oils on dental plaque and gingivitis: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2007; 78: 1218-28. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.060269
  10. Paraskevas S, Rosema NA, Versteeg P, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden GA. Chlorine dioxide and chlorhexidine mouthrinses compared in a 3-day plaque accumulation model. J Periodontol 2008; 79: 1395-400. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.070630
  11. Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 829-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x
  12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves new oral rinse to help treat gingivitis [Internet]. ScienceDaily [updated 2005 April 21; cited 2013 Oct 20]. Available from http://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050419111800.htm.
  13. Burgemeister S, Decker EM, Weiger R, Brecx M. Bactericidal effect of delmopinol on attached and planktonic Streptococcus sanguinis cells. Eur J Oral Sci 2001; 109: 425-7. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0722.2001.00121.x
  14. Simonsson T, Hvid EB, Rundegren J, Edwardsson S. Effect of delmopinol on in vitro dental plaque formation, bacterial acid production and the number of microorganisms in human saliva. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1991; 6: 305-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.1991.tb00498.x
  15. Feres M, Figueiredo LC, Faveri M, Stewart B, de Vizio W. The effectiveness of a preprocedural mouthrinse containing cetylpyridinium chloride in reducing bacteria in the dental office. J Am Dent Assoc 2010; 141: 415-22. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0193
  16. Logothetis DD, Martinez-Welles JM. Reducing bacterial aerosol contamination with a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse. J Am Dent Assoc 1995; 126: 1634-9. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1995.0111
  17. Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.
  18. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
  19. Hase JC. Edwardsson S. Rundegren J, Attstrom R, Kelty E. 6- month use of 0.2% delmopinol hydrochloride in comparison with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate and placebo (II). Effect on plaque and salivary microflora. J Clin Periodontol 1998; 25: 841-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1998.tb02380.x
  20. Sharma N, Charles CH, Lynch MC, Qaqish J, Mcguire JA, Galustians JG, et al. Adjunctive benefit of an essential oilcontaining mouthrinse in reducing plaque and gingivitis in patients who brush and floss regularly: a six-month study. J Am Dent Assoc 2004; 135: 496-504. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0217
  21. Fine DH, Mendieta C, Barnett ML, Furgang D, Meyers R, Olshan A, et al. Efficacy of preprocedural rinsing with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental aerosols. J Periodontol 1992; 63: 821-4. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1992.63.10.821
  22. Veksler AE, Kayrouz GA, Newman MG. Reduction of salivary bacteria by pre-procedural rinses with chlorhexidine 0.12%. J Periodontol 1991; 62: 649-51. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1991.62.11.649
  23. Wenzel A, Kornum F, Knudsen MR, Lau EF. Antimicrobial efficiency of ethanol and 2-propanol alcohols used on contaminated storage phosphor plates and impact on durability of the plate. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2013; 42: 20120353. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20120353

Cited by

  1. Perforation rate of intraoral barriers for direct digital radiography vol.44, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20140245
  2. Microbial contamination in intraoral phosphor storage plates: the dilemma vol.21, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1790-7
  3. Effectiveness of Two Types of Photostimulable Phosphor Plate Plastic Barrier Envelopes for Prevention of Microbiological Contamination vol.20, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2020.047
  4. Dental Considerations After the Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease: A Review of Literature vol.15, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5812/archcid.103257
  5. Quantitative measurements of aerosols from air-polishing and ultrasonic devices: (How) can we protect ourselves? vol.15, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244020
  6. Cross-contamination and infection control in intraoral digital imaging: a comprehensive review vol.37, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11282-020-00452-z