See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261255241

Compare the Effcacy of Two Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing

Viable Bacterial Count in Dental Aerosol produced during Ultrasonic Scaling
when used as a Preprocedural R...

Article  in  The journal of contemporary dental practice · September 2013

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1414 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
15 291

6 authors, including:

Santhosh Shenoy Biju Thomas

A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Science A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Science
11 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    217 PUBLICATIONS   721 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Micronutrients in periodontitis View project

Periodontics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Biju Thomas on 15 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1414
Shamila
OriginalK Shetty et al
Research 

Compare the Efficacy of Two Commercially Available

Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial Count in
Dental Aerosol produced during Ultrasonic Scaling
when used as a Preprocedural Rinse
Shamila K Shetty, Karanth Sharath, Santhosh Shenoy, Chandini Sreekumar, Rashmi N Shetty, Thomas Biju

ABSTRACT Source of support: Nil

Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of preprocedural Conflict of interest: None
mouthrinses (chlorhexidine digluconate and tea tree oil) in
reducing microbial content of aerosol product during ultrasonic INTRODUCTION
scaling procedures by viable bacterial count.
Settings and design: It was a randomized single blind, placebo- Professional interest has developed concerning aerosols
controlled parallel group study. produced microbes and their potential for disease
Materials and methods: Sixty subjects were randomly assigned transmission to clinicians and patients. Assuring the patient
to rinse 10 ml of any one of the mouthrinses (chlorhexidine and operator of a reduced risk to cross-contamination is
digluconate or tea tree oil or distilled water). Ultrasonic scaling critical in maintaining today’s dental practice.1 There are
was done for a period of 10 minutes in presence of trypticase
soy agar plates placed at standardized distance. Plates were at least three potential sources of airborne contamination
then sent for microbiological evaluation for the aerosol produced. during dental treatment: dental instrumentation, saliva
Results: This study showed that all the antiseptic mouthwashes and respiratory sources, and the operative site. One of the
significantly reduced the bacterial colony forming units (CFUs) major source for contamination is bacteria in dental plaque
in aerosol samples. Chlorhexidine rinses were found to be which is harbored in the periodontal pocket. As part of this
superior to tea tree when used preprocedurally in reducing
aerolized bacteria. complex, the mouth harbors bacteria and viruses from the
nose, throat and respiratory tract. Any dental procedure that
Conclusion: This study advocates preprocedural dural rinsing
with an effective antimicrobial mouthrinse during any dental has the potential to aerosolize saliva will cause airborne
treatment which generates aerosols, reduces the risk of cross- contamination with organisms from some or all of these
contamination with infectious agents in the dental operatory.
sources. The most serious potential threat present in aerosols
Clinical significance: The aerolization of oral microbes is Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the organism that causes
occurring during dental procedures can potentially result in
tuberculosis.2 The aerolization of oral microbes which occur
cross-contamination in the dental operatory and transmission
of infectious agents to both dental professionals and patient. during certain dental procedures can potentially result in
It is reasonable to assume therefore, that any stratagem for cross-contamination in the dental operatory and transmission
reducing the viable bacterial content of these aerosols could
of infectious agents to both dental professionals and their
lower the risk of cross-contamination.
patient. It is reasonable to assume therefore, that any
Keywords: Chlorhexidine digluconate, Tea tree oil, Aerosol,
Colony forming unit.
stratagem for reducing the viable bacterial content of these
aerosols could lower the risk of such cross-contamination.3
How to cite this article: Shetty SK, Sharath K, Shenoy S,
Sreekumar C, Shetty RN, Biju T. Compare the Efficacy of Two Hence, the objective of this study was to compare the
Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial efficacy of two commercially available mouthrinses in
Count in Dental Aerosol produced during Ultrasonic Scaling
reducing viable bacterial count in dental aerosol produced
when used as a Preprocedural Rinse. J Contemp Dent Pract
2013;14(5):848-851. during ultrasonic scaling when used as a preprocedural rinse.

848
 JCDP

Compare the Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial Count

MATERIALS AND METHODS PLATE POSITION

Sixty subjects from both genders with the age ranging from Plate placed at 6 inches (half feet) from reference point
25 to 45 years were selected from the outpatients visiting (operator’s nose level).
the Department of Periodontics. The study was approved Plate placed at 6 inches (half feet) from reference point
by the Institutional Ethics Committee. Written informed (dental assistant’s nose level).
consent was taken from subjects selected. A detailed Plate placed at 12 inches (1 feet) from reference point
medical history and dental examination was done on each (patients chest level).
volunteer to fulfill the requirements of following inclusion Prior to the procedure, the ultrasonic unit was switched
on and flushed for a period of 2 minutes as directed by the
and exclusion criteria.
manufacturer in order to get rid of contaminated water due
The study included patients having a minimum of 20
to overnight stagnation in the water lines.
permanent teeth. Patients having an oral hygiene score
(Green and Vermillion; 1960) between 1.3 and 3, plaque
Microbiological Examination
index (Silness and Loe 1964) between 1 and 2, gingival
index score (Loe and Silness 1963) between 1 and 2 were The trypticase soy agar plates containing the aerosol sample
selected for study. Patients with cardiac pacemakers, were subjected to aerobic culturing.
resin restorations, suffering from conditions requiring
prophylactic antibiotics, prior to dental procedures or Aerobic Culturing
currently using antibiotics or history of antibiotic usage in The trypticase soy agar plates were placed in an incubator
past 6 months and with any history of systemic diseases and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours.
were excluded from the study.
Statistical analysis
Study Design
The data collected were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test
It was a randomized single blind, placebo-controlled parallel
and Mann-Whitney U test for percentage reduction in CFUs
group study. Each subject was chosen at random to enter one
as distance increases and percentage difference in CFUs
of the treatment groups using random number table.4 The
between various groups respectively.
treatment group includes:
• Group 1: Comprised of 20 patients who rinsed with RESULTS
distilled water (control group).
• Group 2: Comprised of 20 patients who rinsed with 0.2% The mean CFUs of the control and the test groups at the
chlorhexidine digluconate (Rexidine®). distance of 6 inches from the operator nose level, 6 inches
• Group 3: Comprised of 20 patients who rinsed with tea from the dental assistant’s nose level, 12 inches from the
tree oil (Emoform®). patient chest level respectively were depicted in Graphs 1,
The latter two groups comprised the test group. 2 and 3 respectively.
Comparison of mean CFUs of group 1 (control) with
Procedure group 2 (chlorhexidine) showed a Z-value of 5.412 and
All the selected cases were subjected to ultrasonic scaling.
Prior to the procedure the surfaces of the operatory were
disinfected with ethyl alcohol (70%). Trypticase soy agar
plates were selected as a medium to collect the aerosol
and further the same plates were used as culture media for
assessing the total colony forming units (CFUs). A metal
framework was custom-made. This framework consisted of
three metal rods onto which aluminum trays were fixed. The
framework was fixed on to the hand rest of the dentalchair.
The same dentalchair with the fixed framework was used
throughout the study. The sole objective of the framework
was to standardize the distance of the trypticase soy agar
plates from the reference point (the mouth of the patient).
The standardized distance was maintained throughout the
Graph 1: Comparison of mean CFU’s in distilled water (ONL:
study. Subjects were randomly given mouthrinse to rinse Operator’s nose level; DNL: Dental assistant’s nose level; Pt chest
before the procedure. level: Patient’s chest level)

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, September-October 2013;14(5):848-851 849

Shamila K Shetty et al

Table 1: Comparison of the percentage difference in CFUs

between various groups
Comparison Test statistic p-value Difference in
group Z CFU (%)
1 vs 2 5.412 <0.001 VHS 20.8006
1 vs 3 3.274 <0.001 VHS 6.7257
2 vs 3 5.387 <0.001 VHS 27.7263
Significance: p < 0.001; VHS: Very highly significant; p < 0. 01:
highly significant; p > 0.05: not significant

preprocedural rinse was more effective than group 3. Results

indicate that chlorhexidine digluconate was more effective
than tea tree oil that was found to be highly statistically
significant.
Graph 2: Comparison of mean CFU in CHX (ONL: Operator’s nose
level; DNL: Dental Assistant’s nose level; Pt chest level: Patient’s
DISCUSSION
chest level)
The oral cavity is a unique environment which provides an
ideal medium for bacterial growth. As a result of repeated
exposures to these microorganisms present in blood and
saliva the dental health professional is placed at a higher
risk for developing certain infectious diseases. Certain
dental procedures like ultrasonic scaling procedure produce
aerosols which cause marked changes in the microbial levels
of the surrounding air. Aerosols hence act a medium for
transfer of infectious agents from one person to another thus
aiding in cross infection.5 This study consisted of rinsing
with 10 ml of any one of the mouthrinses under study for a
period of 2 minutes following which ultrasonic scaling was
carried out on a quadrant for a period of 10 minutes. During
the sampling period aerosol generated was collected using
Graph 3: Comparison of mean CFU in tea oil (ONL: Operator’s trypticase soy agar plates.
nose level; DNL: Dental Assistant’s nose level; Pt chest level: The aerosol sample, on microbiological examination
Patient’s chest level)
gave a fair idea about the percentage decrease in the total
p-value of <0.001 and 20.8006% difference which was number of CFUs. Subjects who rinsed with distilled water
found to be highly significant (Table 1). Comparison of mean (control rinse), the mean aerobic microbial CFUs during
CFUs of group 1 (control) with group 3 (tea tree oil) showed aerosol sampling period were 131.1500, 120.85 and 50.75
a Z-value of 3.274 and p-value of <0.001 and 6.7257% at a distance of 6 inches from the operator nose level, 6
difference which was found to be highly significant (Table 1). inches from the dental assistant’s nose level, 12 inches from
Values of mean aerobic CFUs group 1 preprocedural rinse the patient chest level respectively (Graph 1). Subjects who
with group 2 preprocedural rinse showed that group 2 rinsed with chlorhexidine digluconate (0.2%). The mean
preprocedural rinse was more effective than group 1 aerobic microbial CFUs during aerosol sampling period were
preprocedural rinse and comparison of mean aerobic CFUs 10.35, 8, 1.35 at a distance of 6 inches from the operator
group 1 preprocedural rinse with group 3 preprocedural rinse nose level, 6 inches from the dental assistant’s nose level,
showed that group 3 preprocedural rinse was more effective 12 inches from the patient chest level respectively (Graph 2).
than group 1 preprocedural rinse. The values obtained showed Patients who rinsed with tea tree oil, the mean aerobic
that all test rinses were more effective than the control rinse. microbial CFUs during aerosol sampling period was 24.8,
Comparison of mean aerobic CFUs group 2 20.25 and 10.55 at a distance of 6 inches from the operator
(chlorhexidine) with group 3 (tea tree oil) showed a Z-value nose level, 6 inches from the dental assistant’s nose level, 12
of 5.387 and p-value of <0.001 and 27.7263% difference inches from the patient chest level respectively (Graph 3).
which was found to be highly significant (Table 1). The observation from the values of the control and test
Values of mean aerobic CFUs group 2 preprocedural groups indicate that as the distance increases the number of
rinse with group 3 preprocedural rinse showed that group 2 CFUs produced by aerosol significantly decreases (6 inches
850
 JCDP

Compare the Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Mouthrinses in reducing Viable Bacterial Count

from operators nose level and dental assistant’s nose level to REFERENCES
12 inches from the patient’s chest level). This observation 1. Logothetis DD, Martinez-Welles JM. Reducing bacterial aerosol
is in accordance with the study done by Logothesis DD, contamination with a chlorhexidine gluconate pre-rinse. J Am
Martinez W in 1995 wherein agar plates were placed at Dent Assoc 1995;126:1634-1639.
eight standardized locations to collect aerosols. The results 2. Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosol and splatter in dentistry. J Am
Dent Assoc 2004;135(4):429-437.
of their study showed the number of CFUs decreased as the
3. Fine DH, Mandieta C, Barnett ML. Efficacy of preprocedural
distance increased from reference point.1 rinsing with an antiseptic in reducing viable bacteria in dental
On comparison of the mean values between chlorhexidine aerosols. J Periodontol 1992;63:821-824.
and control group, a difference of 20.8006% (Table 1) in 4. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard
aerobic CFUs with p-value <0.001 (VHS) was found. Hence, SV, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials
requiring prolonged observation of each patient. Br J Cancer
the chlorhexidine rinse was found to better than the control
1976;34:585-612.
rinse in reducing microbial CFUs. These findings were in 5. Centers for disease Control. Recommended infection–control
accordance with the study done by Alberto, Ghassan and practices for dentistry. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.
Kayrouz in 1991 to assess the effect of preprocedural rinsing US Department of Health and Human Services1993;41 (No.
with chlorhexidine which has found to have a profound and RR-8):1-12.
6. Veksler AE, Ghassan A. Reduction of salivary bacteria by
sustained effect on the aerobic and facultative flora of the oral
preprocedural rinses with chlorhexidine 0.12%. J Periodontal
cavity which may contribute to a variety of clinical benefits.6 1991;62:649-651.
On comparison of the values between tea tree oil and 7. Arweiler NB, Donos N, Netuschil L, Reich E, Sculean A. Clinical
control group, a difference of 6.7257% (Table 1) with the and antibacterial effect of tea tree oil—a pilot study. Clin Oral
p-value <0.001 (VHS) was found. Hence, tea tree oil was Invest 2000;4:70-73.
8. Addy M, Use of antiseptics in periodontal therapy. IN: Lindhe
found to be better than the distilled water (control rinse).
J, Thorklid K, Niklaus PL. Clinical periodontology and implant
This may be due to the antimicrobial activity of tea tree oil.7 dentistry-4 edition (New Delhi); Blackwell, Munksgaard;
Comparison of results obtained in group 2 [chlorhexidine 2003;p.464-493.
gluconate (0.2%)] and group 3 (tea tree oil) showed a 9. Kulik E, Lenkeit K, Meyer J. Antimicrobial effect of tea tree
statistically significant difference between the two groups oil (Melaleuca alternifolia) on oral microorganisms. Schweiz
27.7263% (see Table 1). This may be due to effectiveness Monatsschr Zahnmed 2000;110(11):125-130.
of chlorhexidine which has a broad spectrum antimicrobial About the Authors
effect coupled with its property of substantively which
Shamila K Shetty (Corresponding Author)
prolongs its antibacterial action when compared to tea tree
oil which has limited substantivity property.7,8 Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontics, AB Shetty Memorial
Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka
However, these results contradict the study by Evakulik
India, Phone: +919901121270, e-mail: shetty.shamila@gmail.com
and Krystyna in 2000 that showed that the minimum
inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bacterial/ Karanth Sharath
fungicidal concentration (MBFC) of tea tree oil required Professor, Department of Periodontics, AB Shetty Memorial Institute
for its antimicrobial effect on broad spectrum Gram- of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
negative and Gram-negative bacteria was less compared to
chlorhexidine.9 Santhosh Shenoy
Reader, Department of Periodontics, AB Shetty Memorial Institute
CONCLUSION of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka, India

This study showed that all the antiseptic mouthwashes Chandini Sreekumar
reduced the bacterial CFUs in aerosol samples. Chlorhexidine
Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontics, AB Shetty Memorial
rinses were found to be superior to tea tree when used Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka
preprocedurally in reducing aerolized bacteria. India

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Rashmi N Shetty

Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontics, AJ Institute of Dental
The findings of this clinical study strictly advocate
Sciences, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
preprocedural rinsing with an effective antimicrobial
mouthrinse to be made compulsory during any treatment Thomas Biju
which generates aerosols, thus reducing the risk of Professor and Head, Department of Periodontics, AB Shetty Memorial
cross-contamination with infectious agents in the dental Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore, Karnataka
operatory. India

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, September-October 2013;14(5):848-851 851

View publication stats