• 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的抗菌效果:一项随机对照研究。

Antimicrobial Efficacy of Charcoal vs. Non-charcoal Toothbrushes: A Randomized Controlled Study.

作者信息

AlDhawi Reema Zaid, AlNaqa Najla Hamad, Tashkandi Oula Esam, Gamal Ahmed Tawfiq, AlShammery Haifa Fahad, Eltom Samar Mohammad

机构信息

Dental Intern at Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Assistant Professor, Preventive Dentistry Department at Riyadh Elm University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Nov 24;10(6):719-723. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_290_20. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.

DOI:10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_290_20
PMID:33437704
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7791587/
Abstract

AIM

To assess the efficacy of the antimicrobial properties of charcoal vs. non-charcoal toothbrushes and the level of bacterial contamination in the oral cavity using a charcoal toothbrush.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind controlled study in which both male and female subjects aged from 18 to 35 were included ( = 30; 15 males and 15 females). The subjects were selected from (students) of Riyadh Elm University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Subjects were informed about the study and signed the consent form before participation. From January to April 2019, subjects were given charcoal and non-charcoal toothbrushes.

RESULTS

The Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there was a significant difference in bacterial counts between non-charcoal and charcoal toothbrushes ( = 0.000). Of the subjects, 70% showed a decrease in the number of bacterial counts while 30% showed no increase in bacterial counts. There was a statistically significant decrease in the number of bacteria in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) with charcoal treatment ( < 0.001). Of the subjects, 96.6% showed a decrease in the count of bacteria in GCF after using a charcoal toothbrush. Only 3.3% of the subjects had the similar counts of bacteria in GCF after using the charcoal toothbrush.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that charcoal toothbrushes reduce bacterial contamination and the poor effects on oral health after 1 week of use.

摘要

目的

评估炭质牙刷与非炭质牙刷抗菌性能的疗效以及使用炭质牙刷时口腔内的细菌污染水平。

材料与方法

这是一项随机、双盲对照研究,纳入了年龄在18至35岁之间的男性和女性受试者(n = 30;15名男性和15名女性)。受试者从沙特阿拉伯利雅得伊玛目大学的(学生)中选取。在参与研究前,向受试者告知了研究情况并让其签署了知情同意书。2019年1月至4月,为受试者提供了炭质牙刷和非炭质牙刷。

结果

Wilcoxon符号秩检验显示,非炭质牙刷和炭质牙刷的细菌计数存在显著差异(P = 0.000)。在受试者中,70%的人细菌计数减少,而30%的人细菌计数没有增加。炭质处理后龈沟液(GCF)中的细菌数量有统计学意义的下降(P < 0.001)。在使用炭质牙刷后,96.6%的受试者龈沟液中的细菌计数减少。使用炭质牙刷后,只有3.3%的受试者龈沟液中的细菌计数相似。

结论

该研究表明,炭质牙刷在使用1周后可减少细菌污染并对口腔健康产生不良影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/4caefe7dda8d/JISPCD-10-719-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/3e23e85a846f/JISPCD-10-719-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/b5ea5cd76895/JISPCD-10-719-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/3776d066f165/JISPCD-10-719-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/cc6f9553484c/JISPCD-10-719-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/b98c3cca0252/JISPCD-10-719-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/11876b71dbb5/JISPCD-10-719-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/4caefe7dda8d/JISPCD-10-719-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/3e23e85a846f/JISPCD-10-719-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/b5ea5cd76895/JISPCD-10-719-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/3776d066f165/JISPCD-10-719-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/cc6f9553484c/JISPCD-10-719-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/b98c3cca0252/JISPCD-10-719-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/11876b71dbb5/JISPCD-10-719-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7133/7791587/4caefe7dda8d/JISPCD-10-719-g007.jpg

相似文献

1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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.
5
Plaque removal efficacy of a new experimental battery-powered toothbrush relative to two advanced-design manual toothbrushes.一种新型实验性电池驱动牙刷相对于两种先进设计手动牙刷的牙菌斑清除效果。
J Clin Dent. 2002;13(5):191-7.
6
Efficacy of three toothbrushes on established gingivitis and plaque.三种牙刷对已患牙龈炎和牙菌斑的疗效。
Am J Dent. 2008 Dec;21(6):339-45.
7
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.
8
Effectiveness of three antimicrobial mouthrinses on the disinfection of toothbrushes stored in closed containers: a randomized clinical investigation by DNA Checkerboard and Culture.三种抗菌漱口水对封闭容器中储存牙刷消毒的有效性:通过DNA棋盘法和培养进行的随机临床研究
Gerodontology. 2014 Sep;31(3):227-36. doi: 10.1111/ger.12035. Epub 2013 Jan 15.
9
Dental Biofilm Removal and Bacterial Contamination of a New Doubled-Side Thermoplastic Polyurethane-Based Toothbrush: A Crossover Study in Healthy Volunteers.新型双面热塑性聚氨酯牙刷的牙菌斑清除及细菌污染情况:一项针对健康志愿者的交叉研究
Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Sep 22;11(10):1296. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11101296.
10
A Thirty-Day Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of the Rowenta, Braun and Sonicare Powered Toothbrushes and a Manual Toothbrush.Rowenta、博朗和飞利浦声波震动牙刷与手动牙刷的30天安全性和有效性评估。
J Clin Dent. 1997;8(4):120-3.

引用本文的文献

1
Putting the mouth back in the body - the neglected area of dental and oral travel health.将口腔放回身体之中——牙科与口腔旅行健康这一被忽视的领域。
Trop Dis Travel Med Vaccines. 2025 Mar 15;11(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s40794-024-00242-z.
2
Status Quo in Mechanical Plaque Control Then and Now: A Review.机械性斑块控制的过去与现在的现状:综述
Cureus. 2022 Aug 31;14(8):e28613. doi: 10.7759/cureus.28613. eCollection 2022 Aug.

本文引用的文献

1
Effectiveness of single use over multiple use toothbrushes on negative oral microflora of plaque.一次性牙刷与多次使用牙刷对牙菌斑阴性口腔微生物群的效果比较
J Family Med Prim Care. 2019 Dec 10;8(12):3940-3943. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_846_19. eCollection 2019 Dec.
2
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.
3
Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of an alternative natural agent for disinfection of toothbrushes.
一种用于牙刷消毒的替代性天然剂抗菌效果的比较评估
Eur J Dent. 2017 Jan-Mar;11(1):111-116. doi: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_196_16.
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
Evaluation of toothbrush disinfection via different methods.通过不同方法对牙刷消毒的评估。
Braz Oral Res. 2016;30. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0006. Epub 2015 Dec 15.
6
Contaminated tooth brushes-potential threat to oral and general health.受污染的牙刷——对口腔和整体健康的潜在威胁。
J Family Med Prim Care. 2015 Jul-Sep;4(3):444-8. doi: 10.4103/2249-4863.161350.
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
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.
9
Effects of easy-to-perform procedures to reduce bacterial colonization with Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus on toothbrushes.易于实施的减少变形链球菌和金黄色葡萄球菌在牙刷上细菌定植的方法的效果。
Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp). 2013 Sep;3(3):204-10. doi: 10.1556/EuJMI.3.2013.3.9. Epub 2013 Sep 23.
10
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。
Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Jan-Feb;22(1):2-5. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.79965.