Differences in antimicrobial activity of four commercial 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse formulations: an in vitro contact test and salivary bacterial counts study

作者: David Herrera , Silvia Roldán , Isabel Santacruz , Sagrario Santos , Mireia Masdevall

DOI: 10.1034/J.1600-051X.2003.00341.X

关键词:

摘要: But: Evaluer l'activite antimicrobienne in vitro et vivo de 4 formules commerciales bains bouche a 0.12% chlorhexidine. Materiel Methodes: Le test d'activite consiste en un contact modifie au cours duquel 20 especes bacteriennes selectionnees sont testees pendant 1 min avec chaque produit test. Apres le contact, l'inoculum ete mis culture les resultats furent exprimes terme survie/ resistance pourcentage survie par rapport une solution saline controle. consistait etude comptage bacterien salivaire double aveugle, randomisee, croisee sur 10 volontaires qui prirent chacun des produits testes I minute. Les echantillons salivaires ont preleves juste avant bain apres 5 min, 1, 3, 7 h. Ces etaient fois aerobie anaerobie. pourcentages survie, debut l'experience, calcules pour temps. Des comparaisons effectuees ANOVA t-test apparie. Resultats: n'entrainait pas chez aucune espece testee CHX+CPC, alors que 3 (L.casei, S. mitis P. micros) resistantes aux autres produits. CHX CHX+NaF entrainait resistances supplementaires (3 especes, respectivement). bacteries montrait CHX+CPC CHX+ALC entrainaient reductions plus importantes anaerobie, ce De significatives differences detectees lors multiples moments test, lorsque l'on comparait ces deux controle testes. Conclusion: D'importantes d'activite, parmi CHX, aussi bien tests vivo. alcool actives celles sans alcool, sauf la formule dans laquelle l'addition CPC, non seulement compense, mais augmente plutot vitro.

参考文章(28)
S. Jenkins, M. Addy, R. Newcombe, Triclosan and sodium lauryl sulphate mouthwashes (I). Effects on salivary bacterial counts. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ,vol. 18, pp. 140- 144 ,(1991) , 10.1111/J.1600-051X.1991.TB01703.X
William J. Blot, Janet B. Schoenberg, Deborah M. Winn, Susan Preston-Martin, Donald F. Austin, Joseph F. Fraumeni, Raymond S. Greenberg, Joseph K. McLaughlin, Mouthwash Use and Oral Conditions in the Risk of Oral and Pharyngeal Cancer Cancer Research. ,vol. 51, pp. 3044- 3047 ,(1991)
P. Renton Harper, S. Milsom, W. Wade, M. Addy, J. Moran, R. G. Newcombe, An approach to efficacy screening of mouthrinses: studies on a group of French products (II). Inhibition of salivary bacteria and plaque in vivo. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ,vol. 22, pp. 723- 727 ,(1995) , 10.1111/J.1600-051X.1995.TB00833.X
N. B. Arweiler, L. Netuschil, E. Reich, Alcohol-free mouthrinse solutions to reduce supragingival plaque regrowth and vitality. A controlled clinical study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ,vol. 28, pp. 168- 174 ,(2001) , 10.1034/J.1600-051X.2001.028002168.X
Joann G. Elmore, Ralph I. Horwitz, Oral Cancer and Mouthwash Use: Evaluation of the Epidemiologic Evidence: Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. ,vol. 113, pp. 253- 261 ,(1995) , 10.1016/S0194-5998(95)70114-1
S. Jenkins, M. Addy, W. Wade, R. G. Newcombe, The magnitude and duration of the effects of some mouthrinse products on salivary bacterial counts Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ,vol. 21, pp. 397- 401 ,(1994) , 10.1111/J.1600-051X.1994.TB00736.X
J. Moran, M. Addy, W. Wade, S. Milson, R. McAndrew, R. G. Newcombe, The effect of oxidising mouthrinses compared with chlorhexidine on salivary bacterial counts and plaque regrowth Journal of Clinical Periodontology. ,vol. 22, pp. 750- 755 ,(1995) , 10.1111/J.1600-051X.1995.TB00257.X
Kathrine R. Eldridge, Sonja F. Finnie, Joni A. Stephens, Amable M. Mauad, Carlos A. Munoz, James D. Kettering, Efficacy of an alcohol-free chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an antimicrobial agent☆☆☆★★★♢♢♢ Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. ,vol. 80, pp. 685- 690 ,(1998) , 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70056-3