• 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

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。

Comparison of Bacterial Contamination and Antibacterial Efficacy in Bristles of Charcoal Toothbrushes versus Noncharcoal Toothbrushes: A Microbiological Study.

作者信息

Thamke Mitali Vilas, Beldar Amol, Thakkar Priya, Murkute Supriya, Ranmare Varsha, Hudwekar Anuja

机构信息

Department of Periodontology and Implantology, MGV's KBH Dental College and Hospital, Nashik, Maharashtra, India.

出版信息

Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):463-467. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_309_18.

DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_309_18
PMID:30166845
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6104356/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Charcoal toothbrushes have been marketed widely claiming lesser bacterial contamination owing to the presence of activated charcoal.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bacterial contamination and antimicrobial efficacy of charcoal bristles compared to noncharcoal bristles in used toothbrushes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients met inclusion criteria which were given standard brushing instructions on the use of a charcoal toothbrush and were asked to return the used brushes after 1 week of usage. After a washout period of 1-week, the participants were then provided with noncharcoal toothbrush and given similar brushing instructions to both groups and were instructed to return the brush after another week of usage. Bristles of the used toothbrushes were sectioned and placed in a 5 ml of saline, and 0.1 ml was inoculated on blood agar plates, which were then placed in a gas pack jar for anaerobic culture. Colony forming units (CFU) were measured after 48 h of incubation. To evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of charcoal bristles, the zone of inhibition was evaluated for charcoal versus noncharcoal after 24 h of incubation. Data collected were analyzed using a paired sample -test.

RESULTS

The mean CFU count for noncharcoal bristles was almost double that of charcoal bristles. About 10 mm of the zone of inhibition was found around charcoal bristles as compared to 3 mm for noncharcoal bristles.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the statistically significant difference in bacterial counts between bristle types and lower CFUs in the charcoal bristles compared with noncharcoal bristles, after 1 week of use. The zone of inhibition that was found around charcoal tooth bristles supported the antimicrobial properties of the charcoal toothbrush.

摘要

背景

炭质牙刷因含有活性炭,在市场上广泛销售,宣称细菌污染较少。

目的

本研究旨在评估用过的牙刷中,炭质刷毛与非炭质刷毛相比的细菌污染情况及抗菌效果。

材料与方法

共有50名患者符合纳入标准,他们接受了关于使用炭质牙刷的标准刷牙指导,并被要求在使用1周后归还用过的牙刷。经过1周的洗脱期后,为参与者提供非炭质牙刷,并给两组提供类似的刷牙指导,指示他们在再使用1周后归还牙刷。将用过的牙刷刷毛切段,放入5毫升盐水中,取0.1毫升接种于血琼脂平板上,然后置于气罐中进行厌氧培养。培养48小时后测量菌落形成单位(CFU)。为评估炭质刷毛的抗菌效果,在培养24小时后评估炭质刷毛与非炭质刷毛的抑菌圈。使用配对样本检验分析收集到的数据。

结果

非炭质刷毛的平均CFU计数几乎是炭质刷毛的两倍。炭质刷毛周围发现约10毫米的抑菌圈,而非炭质刷毛为3毫米。

结论

本研究表明,使用1周后,不同类型刷毛之间的细菌计数存在统计学上的显著差异,且炭质刷毛的CFU低于非炭质刷毛。在炭质牙刷刷毛周围发现的抑菌圈支持了炭质牙刷的抗菌特性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/2101d52a3f0a/CCD-9-463-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/5fa950e4bdf5/CCD-9-463-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/5e91f0bc41e4/CCD-9-463-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/cea840350c9e/CCD-9-463-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/cbeb37256685/CCD-9-463-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/a443a9ac858e/CCD-9-463-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/2101d52a3f0a/CCD-9-463-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/5fa950e4bdf5/CCD-9-463-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/5e91f0bc41e4/CCD-9-463-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/cea840350c9e/CCD-9-463-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/cbeb37256685/CCD-9-463-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/a443a9ac858e/CCD-9-463-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/c0a8/6104356/2101d52a3f0a/CCD-9-463-g007.jpg

相似文献

1
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.
2
Comparison of the antimicrobial properties of charcoal-infused and non-charcoal-infused toothbrushes: an in vitro study.含炭与不含炭牙刷抗菌性能的比较:一项体外研究。
Gen Dent. 2020 Sep-Oct;68(5):51-55.
3
Effectiveness of Different Bristle Designs of Toothbrushes and Periodontal Status among Fixed Orthodontic Patients: A Double-blind Crossover Design.固定正畸患者中不同刷毛设计牙刷的有效性及牙周状况:双盲交叉设计
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 Feb 1;19(2):150-155. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2229.
4
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.
5
Comparison of Plaque Removal and Wear between Charcoal Infused Bristle and Nylon Bristle Toothbrushes: A Randomized Clinical Crossover Study.含炭刷毛牙刷与尼龙刷毛牙刷在牙菌斑清除及磨损方面的比较:一项随机临床交叉研究。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019 Mar 1;20(3):377-384.
6
Contamination of a toothbrush with antibacterial properties by oral microorganisms.口腔微生物对具有抗菌特性的牙刷的污染。
J Dent. 2007 Apr;35(4):331-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2006.10.007. Epub 2006 Nov 22.
7
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.
8
Effect of triclosan dentifrice on toothbrush contamination.三氯生牙膏对牙刷污染的影响。
Pediatr Dent. 2004 Jan-Feb;26(1):11-6.
9
Interproximal access efficacy of three manual toothbrushes with extended, x-angled or flat multitufted bristles.三种带有加长、X 形或平面多束刷毛的手动牙刷的邻间清洁效果。
Int J Dent Hyg. 2010 Aug;8(3):244-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2010.00453.x.
10
Bacterial survival rate on toothbrushes and their decontamination with antimicrobial solutions.牙刷上细菌的存活率及其用抗菌溶液进行消毒的情况。
J Appl Oral Sci. 2004 Jun;12(2):99-103. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572004000200003.

引用本文的文献

1
Toothbrush contamination by toilet plumes: A comparative study in Chennai, India.马桶水花对牙刷的污染:印度钦奈的一项对比研究。
Bioinformation. 2025 May 31;21(5):937-946. doi: 10.6026/973206300210937. eCollection 2025.
2
Assessment of Microbial Contamination of a Toothbrush Head with and without a Protective Cover: An Study.带和不带保护套的牙刷头微生物污染评估:一项研究
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022 Jul-Aug;15(4):455-457. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2403.
3
Microbial approaches for the assessment of toothpaste efficacy against oral species: A method comparison.

本文引用的文献

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
Oral health: charcoal brushes.口腔健康:炭刷。
Br Dent J. 2014 Jul 11;217(1):3. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.557.
3
An antimicrobial effect from silver-coated toothbrush heads.银涂层牙刷头的抗菌效果。
评估牙膏对口腔细菌有效性的微生物学方法:方法比较
Microbiologyopen. 2022 Apr;11(2):e1271. doi: 10.1002/mbo3.1271.
4
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.
5
The Toothbrush Microbiome: Impact of User Age, Period of Use and Bristle Material on the Microbial Communities of Toothbrushes.牙刷微生物群:使用者年龄、使用时长和刷毛材质对牙刷微生物群落的影响
Microorganisms. 2020 Sep 9;8(9):1379. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8091379.
Am J Dent. 2010 Oct;23(5):251-4.
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
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.
6
One-stage full-mouth disinfection to overcome intra-oral transmission of periodontopathogens.采用一次性全口消毒以克服牙周病原体的口腔内传播。
Anaerobe. 1997 Apr-Jun;3(2-3):163-8. doi: 10.1006/anae.1997.0097.
7
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.
8
Effect of triclosan dentifrice on toothbrush contamination.三氯生牙膏对牙刷污染的影响。
Pediatr Dent. 2004 Jan-Feb;26(1):11-6.
9
Bacterial survival rate on tooth- and interdental brushes in relation to the use of toothpaste.与牙膏使用相关的牙刷和牙间刷上细菌的存活率
J Clin Periodontol. 2001 Dec;28(12):1106-14. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.281204.x.
10
The effects of toothpastes on the residual microbial contamination of toothbrushes.牙膏对牙刷残留微生物污染的影响。
J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Sep;132(9):1241-5. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0366.