• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用紫外线和0.2%氯己定溶液评估牙刷消毒效果:一项对比临床研究。

Evaluating sanitization of toothbrushes using ultra violet rays and 0.2% chlorhexidine solution: A comparative clinical study.

作者信息

Tomar Poonam, Hongal Sudheer, Saxena Vrinda, Jain Manish, Rana Kuldeep, Ganavadiya Rahul

机构信息

Department of Public Health Dentistry, People's Dental Academy, People's University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Department of Conservative and Endodontics, People's Dental Academy, People's University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

出版信息

J Basic Clin Pharm. 2014 Dec;6(1):12-8. doi: 10.4103/0976-0105.145769.

DOI:10.4103/0976-0105.145769
PMID:25538466
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4268624/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Toothbrushes may play a significant role in plaque control. Toothbrushes should be correctly stored, disinfected and changed at regular intervals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate solution and ultra violet (UV) toothbrush-sanitizer for toothbrush disinfection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fresh tooth brushes were distributed to fifteen study subjects, who were selected randomly and who met the study criteria. All the study participants were asked to brush their teeth with the tooth brush provided. No special instructions were given regarding the brushing techniques. Toothbrushes were collected after 7 days. All tooth brushes were randomly allocated to three groups. Tooth brushes were subjected to microbial analysis and total bacterial count was assessed. Tooth brushes allocated to Group I were soaked in 2% CHX mouthwash for 12 h, Group II were kept in UV-light toothbrush holder for 7 min, and Group III were soaked in normal saline for 12 h. All the toothbrushes were subjected for microbial analysis and mean bacterial count was determined.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference between mean colony-forming unit count pre-sanitization and post-sanitization in all the groups, using 0.2% CHX gluconate, UV rays and normal saline (P < 0.007). However, the mean bacterial count reduced drastically after the treatment with UV rays (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CHX, UV rays and normal saline are effective in a reduction of bacterial count on toothbrushes. UV rays treatment was more effective, when compared to CHX and normal saline.

摘要

背景

牙刷在牙菌斑控制中可能发挥重要作用。牙刷应正确存放、消毒并定期更换。

目的

本研究旨在评估0.2%葡萄糖酸洗必泰(CHX)溶液和紫外线(UV)牙刷消毒器对牙刷消毒的效果。

材料与方法

将新牙刷分发给15名随机选择且符合研究标准的研究对象。要求所有研究参与者使用提供的牙刷刷牙。未对刷牙技巧给予特殊指导。7天后收集牙刷。所有牙刷随机分为三组。对牙刷进行微生物分析并评估细菌总数。分配到第一组的牙刷在2%CHX漱口液中浸泡12小时,第二组的牙刷置于紫外线牙刷架中7分钟,第三组的牙刷在生理盐水中浸泡12小时。对所有牙刷进行微生物分析并测定平均细菌数。

结果

在所有组中,使用0.2%葡萄糖酸洗必泰、紫外线和生理盐水消毒前后的平均菌落形成单位数存在统计学显著差异(P < 0.007)。然而,用紫外线处理后平均细菌数大幅降低(P = 0.001)。

结论

CHX、紫外线和生理盐水均能有效减少牙刷上的细菌数量。与CHX和生理盐水相比,紫外线处理更有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb5f/4268624/7d73514afbe7/JBCP-6-12-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb5f/4268624/7d73514afbe7/JBCP-6-12-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/bb5f/4268624/7d73514afbe7/JBCP-6-12-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Evaluating sanitization of toothbrushes using ultra violet rays and 0.2% chlorhexidine solution: A comparative clinical study.使用紫外线和0.2%氯己定溶液评估牙刷消毒效果:一项对比临床研究。
J Basic Clin Pharm. 2014 Dec;6(1):12-8. doi: 10.4103/0976-0105.145769.
2
The efficacy of chlorhexidine spray vs mouthwash in the microbial contamination of child toothbrushes.洗必泰喷雾与漱口水对儿童牙刷微生物污染的功效比较
J Dent Child (Chic). 2007 Sep-Dec;74(3):177-81.
3
Comparative evaluation of ultraviolet and microwave sanitization techniques for toothbrush decontamination.紫外线和微波消毒技术用于牙刷去污的比较评估
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2011 Jan;1(1):20-6. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.86383.
4
Comparison of efficacy of herbal disinfectants with chlorhexidine mouthwash on decontamination of toothbrushes: An experimental trial.草药消毒剂与氯己定漱口水对牙刷消毒效果的比较:一项实验性试验。
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;6(1):22-7. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.175406.
5
Evaluating Sanitization of Toothbrushes Using Various Decontamination Methods: A Meta-Analysis.使用各种去污方法评估牙刷的消毒:一项荟萃分析。
J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2019 Jan 27;16(41):364-371.
6
Comparison of Bacterial Contamination and Antibacterial Efficacy in Bristles of Charcoal Toothbrushes versus Noncharcoal Toothbrushes: A Microbiological Study.炭质牙刷与非炭质牙刷刷毛的细菌污染及抗菌效果比较:一项微生物学研究。
Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):463-467. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_309_18.
7
Comparative efficacy of a specially engineered sonic powered toothbrush with unique sensing and control technologies to two commercially available power toothbrushes on established plaque and gingivitis.一款具有独特传感和控制技术的特殊设计声波电动牙刷与两款市售电动牙刷在已形成的牙菌斑和牙龈炎方面的比较疗效。
J Clin Dent. 2012;23 Spec No A:A5-10.
8
Don't Rush with Your Brush: An Study on Toothbrush Hygiene.别急着用牙刷:一项关于牙刷卫生的研究。
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Feb;17(2):162-167. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2776.
9
Antimicrobial efficacy of various disinfecting solutions in reducing the contamination of the toothbrush -- a comparative study.各种消毒溶液在减少牙刷污染方面的抗菌效果——一项对比研究。
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009;7(2):137-45.
10
A Prospective Study on Assessment of Microbial Contamination of Toothbrushes and Methods of Their Decontamination.牙刷微生物污染评估及其去污方法的前瞻性研究
Cureus. 2022 Oct 10;14(10):e30155. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30155. eCollection 2022 Oct.

引用本文的文献

1
A Prospective Study on Assessment of Microbial Contamination of Toothbrushes and Methods of Their Decontamination.牙刷微生物污染评估及其去污方法的前瞻性研究
Cureus. 2022 Oct 10;14(10):e30155. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30155. eCollection 2022 Oct.
2
Knowledge Attitude and Practice of Dentists Regarding Toothbrush Hygiene and Disinfection in Private Dental Colleges of Lucknow City India: A Cross-sectional Study.印度勒克瑙市私立牙科学院牙医对牙刷卫生与消毒的知识、态度及实践:一项横断面研究
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022 Jan-Feb;15(1):79-84. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2341.
3
Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacies of 0.2% Chlorhexidine and 4% Tulsi Extract in the Decontamination of Child Toothbrushes: An Observational Analytical Study.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparative evaluation of ultraviolet and microwave sanitization techniques for toothbrush decontamination.紫外线和微波消毒技术用于牙刷去污的比较评估
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2011 Jan;1(1):20-6. doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.86383.
2
Toothbrush contamination: a review of the literature.牙刷污染:文献综述
Nurs Res Pract. 2012;2012:420630. doi: 10.1155/2012/420630. Epub 2012 Jan 24.
3
Assessment of microbial contamination of toothbrush head: an in vitro study.牙刷头微生物污染的评估:一项体外研究。
0.2%氯己定和4%罗勒提取物对儿童牙刷去污抗菌效果的比较评价:一项观察性分析研究
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2022 Jan 29;12(1):85-92. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_245_21. eCollection 2022 Jan-Feb.
4
Efficacy of Different Sterilization Techniques for Toothbrush Decontamination: An Ex Vivo Study.不同消毒技术对牙刷去污效果的体外研究
Cureus. 2022 Jan 11;14(1):e21117. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21117. eCollection 2022 Jan.
5
Microbiological Effects of Virgin Coconut Oil Pulling in Comparison with Palm Oil Pulling as an Adjunctive Oral Hygiene Care for Patients with Gingival Inflammation: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.初榨椰子油拉舌法与棕榈油拉舌法对牙龈炎症患者辅助口腔卫生护理的微生物学影响:一项随机对照临床试验
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2022 Jan-Feb;26(1):58-63. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_768_20. Epub 2021 Sep 27.
6
Antimicrobial Efficacy of Charcoal vs. Non-charcoal Toothbrushes: A Randomized Controlled Study.炭质牙刷与非炭质牙刷的抗菌效果:一项随机对照研究。
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Nov 24;10(6):719-723. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_290_20. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.
7
Comparison of Bacterial Contamination and Antibacterial Efficacy in Bristles of Charcoal Toothbrushes versus Noncharcoal Toothbrushes: A Microbiological Study.炭质牙刷与非炭质牙刷刷毛的细菌污染及抗菌效果比较:一项微生物学研究。
Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):463-467. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_309_18.
Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Jan-Feb;22(1):2-5. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.79965.
4
A novel approach to controlling bacterial contamination on toothbrushes: chlorhexidine coating.一种控制牙刷细菌污染的新方法:洗必泰涂层。
Int J Dent Hyg. 2009 Nov;7(4):241-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2008.00352.x.
5
Antimicrobial efficacy of various disinfecting solutions in reducing the contamination of the toothbrush -- a comparative study.各种消毒溶液在减少牙刷污染方面的抗菌效果——一项对比研究。
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009;7(2):137-45.
6
Reduction in bacterial contamination of toothbrushes using the Violight ultraviolet light activated toothbrush sanitizer.使用Violight紫外线激活牙刷消毒器减少牙刷的细菌污染
Am J Dent. 2008 Oct;21(5):313-7.
7
Evaluation of the contamination and disinfection methods of toothbrushes used by 24- to 48-month-old children.24至48个月大儿童使用的牙刷的污染及消毒方法评估
J Dent Child (Chic). 2006 Sep-Dec;73(3):152-8.
8
Antimicrobial spray for toothbrush disinfection: an in vivo evaluation.用于牙刷消毒的抗菌喷雾:一项体内评估。
Quintessence Int. 2005 Nov-Dec;36(10):812-6.
9
Microbial contamination of tooth brushes and their decontamination.牙刷的微生物污染及其去污
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2003 Sep;21(3):108-12.
10
Contamination of toothbrush at different time intervals and effectiveness of various disinfecting solutions in reducing the contamination of toothbrush.不同时间间隔牙刷的污染情况以及各种消毒溶液在减少牙刷污染方面的有效性。
J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2002 Sep;20(3):81-5.