Effect of different mouth washes as a pre-procedural rinse to combat aerosol contamination– A cross-sectional study
Background: Ultrasonic scaling is a potent source of aerosol generation in dental offices, thus causing increase risk of bacterial infections. Pre-procedural mouth rinsing has been found effective in reducing the bacterial load of the aerosol produced during the procedure. Aim and objectives: the aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two different mouthwashes containing Chlorhexidine and Octenidine with distilled water, by using them as preprocedural rinsing agents in reducing the bacterial load of the aerosol produced by ultrasonic scaler. Materials and Methods: 80 subjects aged 18-35years were randomly divided into three groups on the basis of mouth rinses used for preprocedural mouthrinsing - Group 1: Distilled Water (Control), Group 2: 0.2% Chlorhexidine (CHX), Group 3: 0.1% Octenidine. The aerosols were collected on agar plates placed and stabilized on patient’s as well as on operator’s chest. all the agar plates were sent for microbiological analysis to the microbiological laboratory for Colony Forming Unit (CFU) count on the same day of ultrasonic scaling procedure. The data obtained was subjected to the statistical analysis using SPSS software version 20.0. Result: At all locations, the mean CFU was significantly highest in Group I, followed by Group II and Group III. It was observed that aerosol generation on patients was significantly more than operator. Conclusion: In our study 0.1% octenidine was found to be most effective preprocedural mouthwash in reducing the bacterial load in the aerosol produced during ultrasonic scaling followed by 0.2% chlorhexidine and distilled water.
2. Rani KR, Ambati M, Prasanna JS, Pinnamaneni I, Reddy PV, Rajashree D. Chemical vs. herbal formulations as preprocedural mouth rinses to combat aerosol production: A randomized controlled study. J Oral Res Rev 2014;6:9-13.
3. Micik RE, Miller RL, Mazzarella MA, Ryge G. Studies on dental aerobiology, I: bacterial aerosols generated during dental procedures. J Dent Res 1969;48(1):49-56.
4. Miller RL, Micik RE, Abel C, Ryge G. Studies of dental aerobiology, II: microbial splatter discharged from the oral cavity of dental patients. J Dent Res 1971;50:621-5.
5. Cottone JA, Terezhalmy GT, Molinari JA. Practical infection control in dentistry. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:139-40.
6. Smith WH, Davies D, Mason KD, Onions JP. Intraoral and pulmonary tuberculosis following dental treatment. Lancet 1982;1:842-4.
7. Harrel SK, Molinari J. Aerosols and splatter in dentistry: A brief review of the literature and infection control implications. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135:429‑37.
8. Shetty SK, Sharath K, Shenoy S, Sreekumar C, Shetty RN, Biju T, et al. 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 rinse. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14:848‑51.
9. Ge ZY, Yang LM, Xia JJ, Fu XH, Zhang YZ. Possible aerosol transmission of COVID-19 and special precautions in dentistry. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2020;21(5):361-368.
10. Infection control recommendations for the dental office and the dental laboratory. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs and ADA Council on Dental Practice. JADA 1996,127:672-80.
11. Ammu A, Varma S, Suragimath G, Zope S, Pisal A, Gangavati R. Evaluation and comparison of two commercially available mouthrinses in reducing aerolised bacteria during ultrasonic scaling when used as a preprocedural rinse. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2019;22:235–240.
12. Nayak SU, Kumari A, Rajendran V, Singh VP, Hegde A, Pai KK. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Chlorhexidine and Herbal Mouthwash as a Preprocedural Rinse in Reducing Dental Aerosols: A Microbiological Study. International Journal of Dentistry 2020;Article ID 2021082:1-6.
13. Slee AM, O’Connor JR. In vitro antiplaque activity of octenidine dihydrochloride (WIN 41464-2) against preformed plaques of selected oral plaque-forming microorganisms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1983; 23(3):531-535.
14. Decker EM, Weiger R, Wiech I, Heide PE, Brecx M. Comparison of antiadhesive and antibacterial effects of antiseptics on Streptococcus sanguinis. Eur J Oral Sci 2003; 111(2):144-148.
15. Kramer A, Assadian O. SP19-4 Octenidine dihydrochloride – Characteristics and clinical use. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2013; 42:S21.
16. Makkar S, Aggarwal A, Pasricha S, Kapur I. Comparative evaluation of octenidine hydrochloride and chlorhexidine as antibacterial root canal irrigant. Indian J Oral Sci 2015;6:10-3.
17. Tirali RE, Bodur H, Sipahi B, Sungurtekin E. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activities of chlorhexidine gluconate, sodium hypochlorite and octenidine hydrochloridein vitro. Aust Endod J 2013;39:15-8.
18. Malhotra A, Bali A and Bareja R: Anti-bacterial efficacy of octenidine as a mouth wash. Int J Pharm Sci Res 2016; 7(1): 340-44.
19. Beiswanger BB, Mallatt ME, Mau MS, Jackson RD, Hennon DK. The clinical effects of a mouth rinse containing 0.1% octenidine. J Dent Res 1990; 69:454-457.
20. Dogan AA, Adiloglu AK, Onal S, Cetin ES, Polat E, Uskun E, Koksal F. Short-term relative antibacterial effect of octenidine dihydrochloride on the oral microflora in orthodontically treated patients. Int J Infect Dis 2008; 12:e19- e25