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

Randomized controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a novel antimicrobial chewing gum in reducing plaque and gingivitis in adolescent orthodontic patients

OBJECTIVES

Chewing gums containing antiseptics or other antimicrobial substances may be effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis. Therefore, the aim of this randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy of a novel antimicrobial chewing gum containing essential oils (cinnamon, lemon, peppermint) and extracts on reduction of dental plaque and gingivitis as well as on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in adolescent orthodontic patients.

MATERIALS

52 patients (11-22 years of age) were randomly assigned to use a test chewing gum (COVIDGUM, Clevergum) or a commercially available control chewing gum over a period of 10 days. Approximal plaque index (API), papillary bleeding index (PBI) and an OHRQoL questionnaire for children (COHIP-G19) were assessed at baseline (BL), after 10 days (10d) and 30 days (30d). In addition, oral health and oral hygiene related questions of the COHIP-G19 questionnaire were evaluated separately in subscales at each timepoint. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical statistical procedures (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

API and PBI decreased significantly over time from BL to 10d and from BL to 30d in both groups, without significant differences between the groups. In both groups, the COHIP-G19 score, oral health subscale and oral hygiene subscale decreased significantly over time. Regarding the oral hygiene subscale, the test group showed significantly better scores at 30d (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

Both chewing gums performed similarly effective in terms of reducing plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation and improving OHRQoL.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Chewing gums without antimicrobial ingredients may be sufficient to decrease plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce aerosol generation in dental environments: A systematic review

Certain dental procedures produce high levels of aerosols containing pathogenic microorganisms, posing a risk for the transmission of infections in dental settings. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of various aerosol mitigation interventions during clinical dental procedures in real-world environments. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase for English studies up to March 2023 according to the PRISMA guidelines. Only peer-reviewed controlled clinical trials (CCT) or randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies involving human subjects were included. The risk of bias of selected researches were evaluated by two independent authors using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The literature search yielded 3491 articles, of which 42 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. Most studies evaluated bacterial contamination in bio-aerosols, while the viral and fungal contamination was assessed in only three studies. Overall, various approaches have been applied in reducing aerosol contamination in clinical scenarios, including high-volume evacuators (HVE), mouse rinses and rubber dams, air cleaning systems, and high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. The available evidence suggests that various aerosol mitigation strategies could be implemented to decrease the risk of cross-infection during clinical dental procedures in real-world environments. However, further clinical trials are necessary to establish statistical validity in measuring aerosol contamination and mitigation, as well as to evaluate the risk of infection transmission for viral and fungal contamination.

Preprocedural mouthwashes for infection control in dentistry-an update

OBJECTIVES

Aerosols and splatter are routinely generated in dental practice and can be contaminated by potentially harmful bacteria or viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents have been proposed as a potential measure for infection control in dental practice. This review article aims to summarize the clinical (and, if insufficient, preclinical) evidence on preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents and to draw conclusions for dental practitioners.

METHODS

Literature on preprocedural mouthwashes for reduction of bacterial or viral load in dental aerosols was searched and summarized.

RESULTS

Preprocedural mouthwashes, particularly those containing chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), or essential oils (EO), can significantly reduce the bacterial load in dental aerosols. With respect to viruses such as HSV-1, there are too little clinical data to draw any clear recommendations. On the other hand, clinical data is consolidating that CPC-containing mouthwashes can temporarily reduce the intraoral viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Nevertheless, potential risks and side effects due to regular antiseptic use such as ecological effects or adaptation of bacteria need to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can be recommended according to currently available data, but further studies are needed, particularly on the effects on other viruses besides SARS-CoV-2. When selecting a specific antiseptic, the biggest data basis currently exists for CHX, CPC, EO, or combinations thereof.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can serve as part of a bundle of measures for protection of dental personnel despite some remaining ambiguities and in view of potential risks and side effects.

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial

Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the short-term efficacy of four commercial mouthwashes versus water in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity over clinically relevant time points.Methods In total, 32 subjects that were proven SARS-CoV-2-positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test were recruited and randomised into five parallel arms. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared in saliva samples between the groups, as well as within the groups at baseline (pre-rinse), zero hours, one hour and two hours post-rinse, using SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR analysis.Results We observed a significant increase in Ct values in saliva samples collected immediately after rinsing with all the four mouthwashes - 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 1% povidone iodine, or Listerine - compared to water. A sustained increase in Ct values for up to two hours was only observed in the Listerine and chlorohexidine gluconate groups. We were not able to sufficiently power this clinical trial, so the results remain notional but encouraging and supportive of findings in other emerging mouthwash studies on COVID-19, warranting additional investigations.Conclusions Our evidence suggests that in a clinical setting, prophylactic rinses with Listerine or chlorhexidine gluconate can potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity for up to two hours. While limited in statistical power due to the difficulty in obtaining this data, we advocate for pre-procedural mouthwashing, like handwashing, as an economical and safe additional precaution to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a potentially infected patient to providers.

Efficacy and safety of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil for human health-A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Introduction: Leaves of the Australian tea tree plant Melaleuca alternifolia were used traditionally by First Nations Australians for treating wounds, burns, and insect bites. Tea tree oil, the essential oil steam-distilled from M. alternifolia, is well-known for its medicinal properties, the evidence for most applications however is limited. This review aimed to critically appraise evidence from clinical trials examining the therapeutic efficacy and safety of tea tree oil on outcomes. Methods: Randomized controlled trials with participants of any age, gender, or health status, comparing tea tree oil to any control were included, without limit on publication date. Electronic databases were searched on 12 August 2022 with additional records sourced from article reference sections, reviews, and industry white papers. Risk of bias was assessed by two authors independently using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 1.0 tool. Results were summarized and synthesized thematically. Results: Forty-six articles were eligible from the following medical fields (Dentistry n = 18, Dermatology n = 9, Infectious disease n = 9, Ophthalmology n = 6, Podiatry n = 3; and Other n = 1). Results indicate that oral mouthwashes with 0.2%-0.5% tea tree oil may limit accumulation of dental plaque. Gels containing 5% tea tree oil applied directly to the periodontium may aid treatment of periodontitis as an adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planing. More evidence is needed to confirm the benefits of tea tree oil for reducing acne lesions and severity. Local anti-inflammatory effects on skin, if any, also require further elucidation. Topical tea tree oil regimens show similar efficacy to standard treatments for decolonizing the body from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, although intra-nasal use of tea tree oil may cause irritation to mucous membranes. Tea tree oil with added iodine may provide an effective treatment for molluscum contagiosum lesions in young children. More evidence on efficacy of tea tree oil-based eyelid wipes for Demodex mite control are needed. Side effects were reported in 60% of included studies and were minor, except where tea tree oil was applied topically in concentrations ≥ 25%. Discussion: Overall, the quality of research was poor to modest and higher quality trials with larger samples and better reporting are required to substantiate potential therapeutic applications of tea tree oil. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42021285168].

Preprocedural mouth rinses for preventing transmission of infectious diseases through aerosols in dental healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Aerosols and spatter are generated in a dental clinic during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) that use high-speed hand pieces. Dental healthcare providers can be at increased risk of transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis, measles and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) through droplets on mucosae, inhalation of aerosols or through fomites on mucosae, which harbour micro-organisms. There are ways to mitigate and contain spatter and aerosols that may, in turn, reduce any risk of disease transmission. In addition to personal protective equipment (PPE) and aerosol-reducing devices such as high-volume suction, it has been hypothesised that the use of mouth rinse by patients before dental procedures could reduce the microbial load of aerosols that are generated during dental AGPs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data  MAIN RESULTS:  We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias.  None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers.  The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent.  The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.

Effectiveness of tea tree oil versus chlorhexidine in the treatment of periodontal diseases: a systematic review

Background Plaque biofilm that adheres to tooth surfaces and gingiva is the main aetiology of periodontitis. Chlorhexidine (CHX) is considered as a gold standard anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis agent but it has side effects such as permanent staining of teeth and dysgeusia. Tea tree oil (TTO) is an essential oil extracted from the leaves of Melaleuca alternifolia. Many studies have reported that TTO exerts strong antibacterial, antifungal, antiviral and anti-inflammatory activities.Primary study objective The review aims to answer the question of whether TTO (intervention) is a viable alternative to CHX (comparator) for the management of gingival and periodontal disease (outcomes) in adolescents and adults (population).Methods/design The following search terms were used in PubMed, Scopus, Proquest, Web of Science, EBSCO (dentistry and open access), Cochrane database, Clinical.gov.org and ctri.nic.in to search for relevant articles: patients with periodontal disease; OR periodontitis; OR gingivitis; OR gingival inflammation; AND essential oil; OR tea tree oil; OR Melaleuca alternifolia; AND chlorhexidine; AND reduction in gingival index; OR reduction in plaque index; OR reduction in bleeding from gums. The initial check for the title and abstract screening followed by removal of duplicates in Mendeley Reference Manager (version 1.19.4) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria were performed.Primary outcome measures Parameters such as plaque index (PI), plaque surface score, gingival index (GI), bleeding index or bleeding as measured by % of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) or bleeding scores, papillary bleeding index (PBI), were the primary outcomes considered.Results TTO is found to be superior to CHX in reducing signs of gingival inflammation; however, CHX is superior to TTO in inhibiting plaque formation, probably due to its increased substantivity.Conclusion TTO may be used as an alternative to CHX for reduction of gingival inflammation in conjunction with efficient plaque control measures.

Effectiveness of Pre-procedural Mouth Rinses in Reducing Aerosol Contamination During Periodontal Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review

Background: Aerosol-producing dental procedures are of concern in the spread of infections, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Periodontal prophylaxis is the most common aerosol-producing procedure conducted in dental practice globally. During COVID-19, many national and international organizations advocated the use of pre-procedural mouth rinsing to prevent the spread of infections from aerosol-generating procedures in the dental setting; however, many questioned the scientific basis for such recommendations. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of pre-procedural rinsing when preforming periodontal prophylaxis in reducing aerosol contamination in the dental setting. Methods: A comprehensive standardized search strategy was employed, informed by a defined PICO question across four electronic databases. The review of the literature was conducted using the PRISMA framework. Agreement between assessors was determined throughout. Synthesis of study characteristics and key outcomes were conducted. Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was employed to assess the quality/bias among studies. Results: The initial search yielded 731 citations across the four databases; 95 potentially effective studies were identified, with 56 effective studies found. Thirty randomized control trial studies were identified, 21 with a focus on effectiveness of pre-procedural mouth rinsing, involving 984 participants (aged 18-70). Agreement between assessors was high (Kappa >0.80). Various pre-procedural mouth rinses were tested, most frequently chlorhexidine (CHX) in 18 studies. The concentrations, volume, and prescribed duration of rinsing varied among studies, hampering meta-analyses. Nonetheless, all studies identified significant reductions in bacterial contamination, as measured by colony forming units (cfu). The effectiveness of CHX over other agents was evident with more than half of the studies (7/15) reporting over a 70% reduction in bacterial contamination (cfu). There were concerns over the risk of bias in most studies (76.2%); 19.0% had a high risk of bias and 4.8% were of low risk of bias. Conclusion: There is substantial evidence to support pre-procedural mouth rinsing, such as with chlorohexidine, to effectively reduce aerosol contamination when performing periodontal prophylaxis compared to mouth rinsing with water or not rinsing.

Dental periodontal procedures: a systematic review of contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in relation to COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on the delivery of routine dentistry; and in particular, periodontal care across the world. This systematic review examines the literature relating to splatter, droplet settle and aerosol for periodontal procedures and forms part of a wider body of research to understand the risk of contamination in relation to periodontal care procedures relevant to COVID-19.

METHODS

A search of the literature was carried out using key terms and MeSH words relating to the review questions. Sources included Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS, ClinicalTrials.Gov . Studies meeting inclusion criteria were screened in duplicate and data extraction was carried out using a template. All studies were assessed for methodological quality and sensitivity. Narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included in the review with procedures including ultrasonic scaling (n = 44), air polishing (n = 4), prophylaxis (n = 2) and hand scaling (n = 3). Outcomes included bacterial (colony-forming units e.g. on settle plates) or blood contamination (e.g. visible splatter) and non bacterial, non blood (e.g. chemiluminescence or coloured dyes) contamination. All studies found contamination at all sites although the contamination associated with hand scaling was very low. Contamination was identified in all of the studies even where suction was used at baseline. Higher power settings created greater contamination. Distribution of contamination varied in relation to operator position and was found on the operator, patient and assistant with higher levels around the head of the operator and the mouth and chest of the patient. Settle was identified 30 min after treatments had finished but returned to background levels when measured at or after an hour. The evidence was generally low to medium quality and likely to underestimate contamination.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasonic scaling, air polishing and prophylaxis procedures produce contamination (splatter, droplets and aerosol) in the presence of suction, with a small amount of evidence showing droplets taking between 30 min and 1 h to settle. Consideration should be given to infection control, areas of cleaning particularly around the patient and appropriate personal protective equipment, with particular attention to respiratory, facial and body protection for these procedures. In addition, the use of lower power settings should be considered to reduce the amount and spread of contamination.

Methods to mitigate infection spread from aerosol-generating dental procedures

Infection control measures play a critical role in preventing the spread of disease in healthcare settings. Concerns that SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019, may be transmitted through droplets and aerosols from both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals has turned the spotlight on healthcare interventions that involve aerosol generation in the oral cavity, such as many dental and periodontal procedures. This commentary seeks to familiarize the dental practitioner with various infection control methods that may be implemented to mitigate spread of infection in dental settings through aerosol-generating dental procedures.

Minimizing the aerosol-generating procedures in orthodontics in the era of a pandemic: Current evidence on the reduction of hazardous effects for the treatment team and patients

The purpose of this critical review is to list the sources of aerosol production during orthodontic standard procedure, analyze the constituent components of aerosol and their dependency on modes of grinding, the presence of water and type of bur, and suggest a method to minimize the quantity and detrimental characteristics of the particles comprising the solid matter of aerosol. Minimization of water-spray syringe utilization for rinsing is suggested on bonding related procedures, while temporal conditions as represented by seasonal epidemics should be considered for the decision of intervention scheme provided as a preprocedural mouth rinse, in an attempt to reduce the load of aerosolized pathogens. In normal conditions, chlorhexidine 0.2%, preferably under elevated temperature state should be prioritized for reducing bacterial counts. In the presence of oxidation vulnerable viruses within the community, substitute strategies might be represented by the use of povidone iodine 0.2%-1%, or hydrogen peroxide 1%. After debonding, extensive material grinding, as well as aligner related attachment clean-up, should involve the use of carbide tungsten burs under water cooling conditions for cutting efficiency enhancement, duration restriction of the procedure, as well as reduction of aerosolized nanoparticles. In this respect, selection strategies of malocclusions eligible for aligner treatment should be reconsidered and future perspectives may entail careful and more restricted utilization of attachment grips. For more limited clean-up procedures, such as grinding of minimal amounts of adhesive remnants, or individualized bracket debonding in the course of treatment, hand-instruments for remnant removal might well represent an effective strategy. Efforts to minimize the use of rotary instrumentation in orthodontic settings might also lead the way for future solutions. Measures of self-protection for the treatment team should never be neglected. Dressing gowns and facemasks with filter protection layers, appropriate ventilation and fresh air flow within the operating room comprise significant links to the overall picture of practice management. Risk management considerations should be constant, but also updated as new material applications come into play, while being grounded on the best available evidence.

Demystifying the mist: Sources of microbial bioload in dental aerosols

The risk of transmitting airborne pathogens is an important consideration in dentistry and has acquired special significance in the context of recent respiratory disease epidemics. The purpose of this review, therefore, is to examine (1) what is currently known regarding the physics of aerosol creation, (2) the types of environmental contaminants generated by dental procedures, (3) the nature, quantity, and sources of microbiota in these contaminants and (4) the risk of disease transmission from patients to dental healthcare workers. Most dental procedures that use ultrasonics, handpieces, air‐water syringes, and lasers generate sprays, a fraction of which are aerosolized. The vast heterogeneity in the types of airborne samples collected (spatter, settled aerosol, or harvested air), the presence and type of at‐source aerosol reduction methods (high‐volume evacuators, low volume suction, or none), the methods of microbial sampling (petri dishes with solid media, filter paper discs, air harvesters, and liquid transport media) and assessment of microbial bioload (growth conditions, time of growth, specificity of microbial characterization) are barriers to drawing robust conclusions. For example, although several studies have reported the presence of microorganisms in aerosols generated by ultrasonic scalers and high‐speed turbines, the specific types of organisms or their source is not as well studied. This paucity of data does not allow for definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding saliva as a major source of airborne microorganisms during aerosol generating dental procedures. Well‐controlled, large‐scale, multi center studies using atraumatic air harvesters, open‐ended methods for microbial characterization and integrated data modeling are urgently needed to characterize the microbial constituents of aerosols created during dental procedures and to estimate time and extent of spread of these infectious agents.

Interventions to Reduce Aerosolized Microbes in Dental Practice: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify and rank the effectiveness of different interventions used in dental practice to reduce microbial load in aerosolized compounds. Seven electronic databases were searched to April 6, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized prospective studies in the field. Study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment were performed for all included studies, while the outcome of interest pertained to differences in bacterial load quantification through the use of different interventions prior to aerosol-generating procedures in dental practices. Random effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed, with mean difference (MD) and 95% CI as the effect measure. Confidence in the documented evidence was assessed through the newly fueled CINeMA framework (Confidence in Network Meta-analysis) based on the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Twenty-nine clinical trials were deemed eligible, 21 RCTs and 8 nonrandomized studies, while 11 RCTs contributed to the network meta-analysis, comprising 10 competing interventions. Tempered chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% as compared with nonactive control mouth rinse, prior to routine ultrasonic scaling, was most effective toward reduced postprocedural bacterial load with an MD of -0.92 (95% CI, -1.54 to -0.29) in log₁₀ bacterial CFUs (colony-forming units). For CHX 0.2%, an MD of -0.74 (95% CI, -1.07 to -0.40) was observed as compared with control. Tempered CHX 0.2% presented the highest probabilities of being ranked the most effective treatment (31.2%). Level of confidence varied from very low to moderate across all formulated comparisons. These findings summarize the current state of research evidence in the field of aerosolized bacteria in dentistry. Instigated by the era of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the stipulation of a broader evaluation of the aerosolized microbes, including viruses, potentially coupled with disinfectant-based prevention schemes should be prioritized.

Efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of microorganisms in aerosol: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The authors of this systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in reducing the number of microorganisms disseminated by means of the aerosol generated via dental procedures when compared with a placebo, water, or no mouthrinse.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors included only randomized clinical trials. They searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Google Scholar, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases through May 31, 2019. They performed random-effects meta-analysis for reduction of the number of colony-forming units (CFU) in the dental aerosol.

RESULTS

Of 770 potentially relevant articles, the authors included 13 randomized clinical trials in which researchers studied the efficacy of chlorhexidine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and herbal products. Meta-analysis of 12 studies showed that mouthrinses with chlorhexidine, essential oils, and cetylpyridinium chloride significantly reduced the number of CFU. Overall, the use of a preprocedural mouthrinse resulted in a mean reduction in the number of CFUs of 64.8% (95% confidence interval, 50.4% to 79.3%; I² = 37%) compared with control. None of the included studies presented a low risk of bias.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Some dental procedures result in dissemination of microorganisms in the aerosol in the dental office. There is moderate evidence that preprocedural mouthrinses significantly reduce the number of microorganisms in the dental aerosol.

Effect of aloe vera as a preprocedural rinse in reducing aerosol contamination during ultrasonic scaling

Background:

The use of preprocedural mouth rinse is one of the recommended ways to reduce aerosol contamination during ultrasonic scaling. Different agents have been tried as preprocedural mouth rinse. Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine significantly reduce the viable microbial content of aerosol when used as a preprocedural rinse. Studies have shown that aloe vera (AV) mouthwash is equally effective as chlorhexidine in reducing plaque and gingivitis. There is no published literature on the role of AV as a preprocedural mouth rinse. Hence, this study compared the effect of 94.5% AV to 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and 1% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) as preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing the aerosol contamination by ultrasonic scaling.

Materials and Methods:

Sixty subjects were divided into three groups based on the preprocedural rinse use (0.2% CHX, 1% PVP-I, and 94.5% AV). Ultrasonic scaling was done for 20 min in the same closed operatory for all the subjects after keeping blood agar plates open at two standardized locations. Colony forming units (CFUs) on blood agar plates were counted, and predominant bacteria were identified after incubation at 37°C for 48 h.

Results:

There was statistically significant difference in the CFU counts between CHX group and PVP-I group and between AV group and PVP-I group. There was no difference between CHX group and AV group at both the locations.

Conclusion:

94.5% AV as a preprocedural rinse is better than 1% PVP-I and comparable to 0.2% CHX in reducing CFU count.

Effectiveness of a pre-procedural mouthwash in reducing bacteria in dental aerosols: randomized clinical trial

The aim of this randomized, single blinded clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of a pre-procedural mouthwash containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), zinc lactate (Zn) and sodium fluoride (F) in the reduction of viable bacteria in oral aerosol after a dental prophylaxis with ultrasonic scaler. Sixty systemically healthy volunteers receiving dental prophylaxis were randomly assigned to one of the following experimental groups (15 per group): (i) rinsing with 0.075% CPC, 0.28% Zn and 0.05% F (CPC+Zn+F), (ii) water or (iii) 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), and (iv) no rinsing. Viable bacteria were collected from different locations in the dental office on enriched TSA plates and anaerobically incubated for 72 hours. The colonies were counted and species were then identified by Checkerboard DNA-DNA Hybridization. The total number of colony-forming units (CFUs) detected in the aerosols from volunteers who rinsed with CPC+Zn+F or CHX was statistically significantly (p<0.05) lower than of those subjects who did not rinse or who rinsed with water. When all locations were considered together, the aerosols from the CPC+Zn+F and CHX groups showed, respectively, 70% and 77% fewer CFUs than those from the No Rinsing group and 61% and 70% than those from the Water group. The mean proportions of bacterial species from the orange complex were statistically significantly (p<0.05) lower in aerosols from the CPC+Zn+F and CHX groups compared with the others two groups. In conclusion, the mouthwash containing CPC+Zn+F, is effective in reducing viable bacteria in oral aerosol after a dental prophylaxis with ultrasonic scaler.