Effects of easy- to- perform procedures to reduce bacterial colonization with. Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus on. Abstract. It is well known that dental caries and periodontitis are the consequence of bacterial. The continuous presence of. The retention. and survival of microorganisms on toothbrushes pose a threat of recontamination especially. T- cell depleted bone marrow transplantation. Thus, the effects of different.
Аппарат Вектор для лечения пар gv1. Гель Пародонтоцид – цена, отзы CB12. СВ12 от запаха изо рта – отзыв b5. Стоматофит – инструкция по при. . являются более активными, чем коммерческий продукт Chlorhexamed forte®, содержащий 0,2% по массе хлоргексидина диглюконата . Chlorhexamed FORTE alkoholfrei 0,2% · Lösung, 600 Milliliter GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare GmbH & Co. KG Art.-Nr. (PZN): 9642869. 1 665 руб. Produktbesonderheiten от Chlorhexamed® ФОРТЕ безалкогольное 0,2 % - Проверенные Chlorhexamed® - Качество - Уменьшает бактерий, эффективно .
Сеалекс форте sealex - инструкция отзывы. Против аромата chlorhexamed forte0,2 и вообщем как профилактика для зубов неплох..
Toothbrushes were intentionally contaminated with standardized suspensions of. Streptococcus mutans or Staphylococcus aureus. Afterwards, the toothbrushes were exposed to rinsing under distilled water, rinsing and.
UV) radiation. The remaining colony forming units were compared with freshly contaminated positive. Each experiment was nine- fold repeated. Bi- factorial variance analysis was.
P < 0. 0. 5. All tested procedures led to a significant reduction of bacteral colonization. Chlorhexidine- based decolonization was shown to be superior to rinsing and slightly. UV radiation was similarly effective as.
UV radiation was slightly less prone to species- dependent limitations of. Reduction of bacterial colonization of toothbrushes might reduce the risk of maintaining.
Accordingly, respective procedures. Keywords: bacterial colonization, decolonization, oral hygiene, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, toothbrush.
Introduction. The most important and most frequently applied tool for everyday dental care is the. In this context, electric toothbrushes are more and more frequently used for. Clear differences of the mechanical. Toothbrushes are usually used for several weeks or even months, leading to colonization. Continuous re- exposition by tooth brushing may maintain persisting oral infections or lead.
Accordingly, changing the toothbrush at least once a month is. Oral infections due to tooth.
Accordingly, there might be a – however minimal – risk of infection due to. Data on bacterial colonization of toothbrushes are scarce, particularly for electric. Effects of automated brushing and sonic- based toothbrushes on the. It is further unclear, whether.
UV radiation after usage of manual and electric toothbrushes might effectively reduce their. The study assessed whether simple chlorhexidine disinfection or even rinsing with tap water. Different types of. In a further approach, the decolonizing.
UV toothbrush sanitizers on manual and sonic toothbrushes were assessed. UV- C. radiation is known to be suitable to reduce bacterial colonization on toothbrush heads. Finally, the effect of bristle thickness on the effects of decolonizing procedures was. Methods. Bacterial suspensions. Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 2. American Typ Culture Collection.
Manassas, Virginia, USA) and Streptococcus mutans (DSM 2. German. Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany) were used. The. strains were grown to stationary growth phase in 1.
BHI). broth (Bacto™, BD, Heidelberg, Germany). These two suspensions (adjusted to Mc. Farland 0. 5. using BHI broth) were diluted 1: 1.
Comparison of bacterial colonization of three electric toothbrushes depending. Toothbrushes Three electric toothbrushes were included, comprising the rotation/oscillation- based. Oral- B Professional Care 8.
Braun, Kronberg/Taunus, Germany), the sonic toothbrush. Oral- B Sonic Complete (Braun, Kronberg/Taunus, Germany), and the sonic toothbrush.
Philips Sonicare Flex. Care (Philips Deutschland Gmb. H, Hamburg, Germany) (Fig. Flow chart of the experiments. Contamination procedure The electric toothbrushes were dipped into the bacterial suspensions and activated for. Both activated and inactivated states were assessed.
Each bacterial suspension. Fig. 1). Experimental procedures to reduce the bacterial load Four different experimental settings were assessed with 9- fold repeats. The positive. controls were analyzed directly after the above described contamination procedure. The. tested procedures comprised rinsing under distilled water, rinsing and consecutive.
Fig. 1). Quantification of bacterial colonization Each contaminated toothbrush was shaken and sonicated (Bandelin Electronic UW2. Columbia sheep blood agar plates (supplemented with 5% sheep blood, BD) and. C in a CO2- enriched atmosphere for 2.
Colonies were. counted, and bacterial load was calculated. Bacterial load was assessed as percentage of.
Fig. 1). Statistical analysis All experiments were performed with 9- fold repeats. The freely available. R (version 2. 6) was used for statistical. The influences of the toothbrush models and the modes decolonization on the. Significance was accepted at P < 0. Decolonizing effects of storage in UV toothbrush sanitizers in comparison.
Toothbrushes A manual toothbrush Oral B Flex plus intermediate (Braun, Kronberg/Taunus, Germany) and. Philips Sonicare (Philips Deutschland Gmb. H, Hamburg, Germany) were.
Experimental decolonization settings Artificial contamination with S. S. aureus. as well as decolonization by chlorhexidine treatment and rinsing with consecutive drying. The Philips Sonicare sonic toothbrush was activated.
In addition, two further decolonization protocols. UV radiation were added, including exposure to UV- C radiation for 1. Philips Sonicare in a Philips UV toothbrush sanitizer (Philips Deutschland Gmb. H. Hamburg, Germany) and of the Oral B Flex plus intermediate manual toothbrush in a VIO. UV toothbrush sanitizer (Violife Inc., New York, USA) according to the. Assessment of bacterial growth including nine- fold repeats. Residual bacterial growth.
Comparison of bristle thickness of toothbrushes on decolonizing effects of. UV- C radiation. Toothbrushes The manual toothbrushes Dr. Best Flex Plus intermediate (Glaxo. Smith. Kline Consumer. Healthcare Ltd., Bühl, Germany) and Dr. Best Flex Plus hard (Glaxo. Smith. Kline Consumer.
Healthcare Ltd., Bühl, Germany) were chosen for these experiments. Experimental decolonization settings Artificial contamination with S. S. aureus. as well as decolonization by chlorhexidine treatment, rinsing with consecutive drying.
UV- C radiation using a VIO light toothbrush sanitizer (Violife Inc., New York, USA). In. addition, decolonization using five sprays of Chlorhexamed Forte 0. Glaxo. Smith. Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., Bühl, Germany) containing 0. Assessment of bacterial growth including nine- fold repeats and statistical. Residual bacterial growth after. Results. Comparison of bacterial colonization of three electric toothbrushes depending.
Colonization with S. Toothbrush model (in active state), state of activity, and brush head type showed no.
S. mutans (data. not shown). In inactive state, highest colonization densities were observed on the sonic.
Sonic Complete with a median of 1. Oral. B Professional Care 8. Sonicare Flex. Care with a median of 0. P < 0. 0. 1). On inactive toothbrushes, highest S. All decolonization schemes led to a significant reduction of bacterial.
In detail, a. median of 8. The bacterial load declined to 3. However, a more. pronounced scattering of the measured colony numbers after rinsing and drying led to a. P < 0. 0. 01). Nevertheless, the latter effect is unsure, because rinsing and drying showed.
P = 0. 7. 2) (Table. Summarized results of the experiments with Streptococcus.
Colonization with S. Toothbrush model in inactive state, state of activity, and different types of brush. S. aureus. densities after contamination (data not shown). The sonic toothbrush Sonic Complete.
Sonicare. Flex. Care with a bacterial load of 3. Oral B Professional Care 8. P < 0. 0. 1). Highest bacterial concentrations were observed after.
P < 0. 0. 00. 1) (Table. Summarized results of the experiments with Streptococcus. Decolonizing effects of storage in UV toothbrush sanitizers in comparison. The toothbrush model did not influence the colonization due to the contamination. Colonization with S. Compared with the positive controls without decolonization, rinsing and drying. S. mutans growth while chlorhexidine.
UV toothbrush sanitizers led to a reduction of S. While rinsing and drying showed worse. P < 0. 0. 01), there was no measurable difference between. UV radiation (P > 0. Table 3). Decolonizing effects of UV radiation, chlorhexidine treatment, and rinsing with.
Colonization with S. Compared with the positive controls without decolonization, rinsing and drying. S. aureus growth while chlorhexidine. UV toothbrush sanitizers led to a reduction of S. While rinsing and drying showed worse. P < 0. 0. 1), again there was no measurable difference between.
UV radiation (P > 0. Table 3). Comparison of bristle thickness of toothbrushes on decolonizing effects of. UV- C radiation. Colonization with S. Compared with the positive controls without decolonization, rinsing and drying.
S. mutans growth while chlorhexidine. UV- C radiation led to a reduction of.
S. mutans growth to a median of 0. While rinsing and drying showed. P < 0. 0. 1), there was no measurable difference between either.
UV radiation (P > 0. Measurable differences between toothbrushes with intermediate and with hard bristles. P = 0. 6. 8). Colonization with S. Compared with the positive controls without decolonization, rinsing and drying. S. aureus growth while both. UV radiation led to a reduction of S. In contrast, rinsing and drying of brush heads with hard bristles preserved a median of.
S. aureus growth, chlorhexidine treatment a median of 0. UV radiation a median of 0.
Accordingly, for toothbrushes with. P < 0. 0. 5), while. UV. radiation (P > 0. For toothbrushes with hard bristles, in. UV radiation alone scored better than rinsing with consecutive drying.
P < 0. 0. 01), while there was no statistical difference between all. P > 0. 0. 5). For S. P < 0. 0. 1), while there was no such difference for rinsing. UV radiation (P > 0. Table 4). Effects of bristle thickness on decolonizing effects after contamination of manual.
Staphylococcus aureus. Discussion. Toothbrushes are colonized by a variety of different microorganisms [9, 1. Two species with. S. mutans has previously been shown to be.