Comparative evaluation of effect of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine in dental unit waterline on aerosolized bacteria generated during dental treatment.
Agar plates
Chlorhexidine
Dental aerosols
Dental unit waterline
Sodium hypochlorite
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 11 2023
14 11 2023
Historique:
received:
11
08
2023
accepted:
27
10
2023
medline:
16
11
2023
pubmed:
15
11
2023
entrez:
14
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In dentistry, nosocomial infection poses a great challenge to clinicians. The microbial contamination of water in dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) is ubiquitous. Such infected DUWLs can transmit oral microbes in the form of aerosols. Previous studies have suggested treating DUWLs with various disinfectants to reduce cross-contamination. The literature lacks a comparative evaluation of the effect of the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in DUWLs on aerosolized bacteria generated during dental procedures. To compare the effect of NaOCl and CHX in DUWLs on aerosolized bacteria generated during restorative and endodontic procedures. A total of 132 patients were equally divided into three groups (n = 44 in each group) according to the content of DUWL as follows. Group I-0.1% NaOCl Group II-0.2% CHX Group III-distilled water (Positive control) One-way ANOVA was performed and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for intergroup comparison. For the restorative procedure, inter-group comparison of mean colony-forming units (CFU) scores showed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p - .001) with the score of group 3 higher than group 2 followed by group 1. For the endodontics, an inter-group comparison of CFU scores showed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p - .003) with the mean score in group 1 being the lowest and group 3 being the highest. The addition of NaOCl or CHX in DUWLs shows an effective reduction in aerosolized bacteria compared to distilled water.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In dentistry, nosocomial infection poses a great challenge to clinicians. The microbial contamination of water in dental unit waterlines (DUWLs) is ubiquitous. Such infected DUWLs can transmit oral microbes in the form of aerosols. Previous studies have suggested treating DUWLs with various disinfectants to reduce cross-contamination. The literature lacks a comparative evaluation of the effect of the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 0.1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in DUWLs on aerosolized bacteria generated during dental procedures.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effect of NaOCl and CHX in DUWLs on aerosolized bacteria generated during restorative and endodontic procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 132 patients were equally divided into three groups (n = 44 in each group) according to the content of DUWL as follows. Group I-0.1% NaOCl Group II-0.2% CHX Group III-distilled water (Positive control) One-way ANOVA was performed and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for intergroup comparison.
RESULTS
For the restorative procedure, inter-group comparison of mean colony-forming units (CFU) scores showed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p - .001) with the score of group 3 higher than group 2 followed by group 1. For the endodontics, an inter-group comparison of CFU scores showed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p - .003) with the mean score in group 1 being the lowest and group 3 being the highest.
CONCLUSION
The addition of NaOCl or CHX in DUWLs shows an effective reduction in aerosolized bacteria compared to distilled water.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37964280
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03585-9
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03585-9
pmc: PMC10647182
doi:
Substances chimiques
Chlorhexidine
R4KO0DY52L
Sodium Hypochlorite
DY38VHM5OD
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
865Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Feb 23;12(3):2344-58
pubmed: 25711357
J Endod. 2019 Mar;45(3):302-309.e1
pubmed: 30803537
J Oral Rehabil. 2023 Jul;50(7):627-634
pubmed: 37021601
BMC Public Health. 2012 Aug 02;12:594
pubmed: 22853006
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 9;8(1):5709
pubmed: 29632404
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(3):357-64
pubmed: 25720703
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2017 Fall;11(4):215-221
pubmed: 29354247
J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Mar;148(3):164-171
pubmed: 28126227
Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 09;10(4):
pubmed: 35453624
J Hosp Infect. 2006 Sep;64(1):76-81
pubmed: 16820249
Microorganisms. 2018 Jul 18;6(3):
pubmed: 30021964
Dent Mater. 2005 Aug;21(8):780-6
pubmed: 16026668
Microorganisms. 2020 Aug 11;8(8):
pubmed: 32796669
Technol Health Care. 2023;31(5):1923-1934
pubmed: 36872812
J Endod. 2020 May;46(5):584-595
pubmed: 32273156
J Appl Microbiol. 2009 May;106(5):1424-37
pubmed: 19187140
J Endod. 2021 Sep;47(9):1417-1426
pubmed: 34229033
Water Res. 2015 Sep 15;81:223-31
pubmed: 26072020
J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Apr;135(4):429-37
pubmed: 15127864
Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jul 20;23(14):
pubmed: 35887336
J Hosp Infect. 2016 Dec;94(4):393-396
pubmed: 27597265
Environ Monit Assess. 2013 May;185(5):3603-11
pubmed: 22899458
J Pers Med. 2022 Nov 17;12(11):
pubmed: 36422096
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 01;16(21):
pubmed: 31683783
J Hosp Infect. 2001 Dec;49(4):285-8
pubmed: 11740878
New Microbiol. 2021 Apr;44(2):117-124
pubmed: 33978196
Eukaryot Cell. 2005 Apr;4(4):633-8
pubmed: 15821123
Public Health Rep. 2006 May-Jun;121(3):270-4
pubmed: 16640149
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 12;10:CD013686
pubmed: 33047816
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2012 Jul;65(2):196-204
pubmed: 22469485
Ann Afr Med. 2022 Jan-Mar;21(1):1-7
pubmed: 35313397
J Can Dent Assoc. 2007 Sep;73(7):618-22
pubmed: 17868512
PeerJ. 2020 Jul 15;8:e9503
pubmed: 32742792
Gen Dent. 2003 Sep-Oct;51(5):472-6; quiz 477
pubmed: 15055639
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003 Dec 19;52(RR-17):1-61
pubmed: 14685139
Biofouling. 2020 May;36(5):587-596
pubmed: 32580580
Am J Infect Control. 2017 Feb 1;45(2):180-189
pubmed: 27838164
J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2017 Jun;50(3):270-276
pubmed: 26066542
J Oral Rehabil. 2023 Sep;50(9):877-885
pubmed: 37183340
BMC Oral Health. 2023 Mar 18;23(1):158
pubmed: 36934281
J R Soc Interface. 2014 Dec 6;11(101):20140950
pubmed: 25401184
J Hosp Infect. 1990 Jul;16(1):9-18
pubmed: 1974912
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2007;14(1):137-40
pubmed: 17655191
Int Dent J. 2016 Aug;66(4):208-14
pubmed: 27000421
Saudi Dent J. 2020 Feb;32(2):68-73
pubmed: 32071534
J Am Dent Assoc. 2000 Oct;131(10):1427-41
pubmed: 11042982
J Hosp Infect. 2004 Apr;56(4):297-304
pubmed: 15066741
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 16;19(2):
pubmed: 35055807
N Y State Dent J. 2009 Apr;75(3):20-4
pubmed: 19548488
J Dent. 2007 Sep;35(9):701-11
pubmed: 17576035
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 May;25(5):3131-3139
pubmed: 33047203
Spec Care Dentist. 2002 Jul-Aug;22(4):137-41
pubmed: 12449456
J Am Dent Assoc. 1999 Jul;130(7):957-65
pubmed: 10422399
J Dent. 2020 Dec;103:103497
pubmed: 33075450
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017 Sep 1;93(9):
pubmed: 28934400
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Jul;10(7):ZC80-4
pubmed: 27630960
Chemosphere. 2017 Apr;173:245-252
pubmed: 28110014
Front Microbiol. 2019 Mar 22;10:587
pubmed: 30967854
J Dent Sci. 2021 Jan;16(1):327-332
pubmed: 33384816
Int Dent J. 2019 Jun;69(3):192-199
pubmed: 30565215
J Oral Rehabil. 2023 Aug;50(8):715-723
pubmed: 37162279
J Endod. 2020 Sep;46(9):1341-1342
pubmed: 32867925
J Dent (Tehran). 2015 Feb;12(2):109-17
pubmed: 26056520
Pathogens. 2020 Apr 21;9(4):
pubmed: 32326140
Dent Med Probl. 2023 Jul-Sep;60(3):385-392
pubmed: 36916857
Future Microbiol. 2011 Oct;6(10):1209-26
pubmed: 22004039
RSC Adv. 2020 Oct 29;10(65):39627-39639
pubmed: 35515357
Int J Dent Hyg. 2022 Feb;20(1):40-52
pubmed: 33971082
Indian J Dent Res. 2020 May-Jun;31(3):465-469
pubmed: 32769284
Int J Dent. 2019 Jul 30;2019:5720204
pubmed: 31467546