Jain Ashish, Grover Vishakha, Singh Charandeep, Sharma Anshul, Das Deepjyoti Kumar, Singh Prashant, Thakur Krishan Gopal, Ringe Rajesh P
Department of Periodontology, Dr. H. S. J. Institute of Dental Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Dr. H. S. J. Institute of Dental Sciences, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2021 Jan-Feb;25(1):86-88. doi: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_824_20. Epub 2021 Jan 7.
Dentists across the globe are witnessing a completely unforeseen and uncertain professional situation during these times of COVID-19 pandemic. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of routinely used mouthwashes and especially Chlorhexidine, to reduce the viral load in oral cavity and the aerosols during oral procedures.
Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of the current 'gold standard' chlorhexidine and povidone iodine as a control agent, through an in-vitro analysis.
laboratory analysis.
All the experiments for analysis of antiviral efficacy of chlorhexidine digluconate (2%)and povidone iodine(1%), against SARS-CoV-2 virus were performed in the BSL3 facility at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-Institute of Microbial Technology, using the VeroE6 cell lines. The analysis of the virus inactivation was based on quantification of viral RNA (Cycle threshold (Ct) profile) present in the culture supernatant using Real-Time Quantitative Reverse Transcription PCR (qRT-PCR).
Descriptive analysis (Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, version 15.0 for Windows).
Chlorhexidine digluconate in 0.2% concentration inactivated more than 99.9% of SARS CoV 2 virus, in minimal contact time of 30 seconds, which was considered better efficacy than povidone-iodine utilized for 30 and 60 seconds. Subtle differences were observed in the activity of both the compounds in terms of percent inactivation of virus, though a greater relative change in Ct values was observed for chlorhexidine.
Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that Chlorhexidine digluconate in 0.2% concentration inactivated SARS CoV 2 in minimal contact time i.e 30 secs, however both compounds tested i.e Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine were found to have antiviral activity against SARS CoV2 virus.
在新冠疫情期间,全球牙医都面临着一种完全不可预见且不确定的职业状况。关于常规使用的漱口水,尤其是洗必泰,在口腔操作过程中减少口腔病毒载量和气溶胶方面的有效性,存在相互矛盾的证据。
通过体外分析,对当前的“金标准”洗必泰和聚维酮碘作为对照剂的有效性进行比较评估。
实验室分析。
在科学与工业研究理事会微生物技术研究所的生物安全3级设施中,使用VeroE6细胞系进行了所有分析葡萄糖酸氯己定(2%)和聚维酮碘(1%)对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)病毒抗病毒功效的实验。病毒灭活分析基于使用实时定量逆转录聚合酶链反应(qRT-PCR)对培养上清液中存在的病毒RNA(循环阈值(Ct)谱)进行定量。
描述性分析(社会科学统计软件包(SPSS Inc.,伊利诺伊州芝加哥,Windows版15.0))。
0.2%浓度的葡萄糖酸氯己定在最短30秒的接触时间内灭活了超过99.9%的SARS-CoV-2病毒,这被认为比使用30秒和60秒的聚维酮碘效果更好。尽管洗必泰的Ct值相对变化更大,但就病毒灭活百分比而言,两种化合物的活性存在细微差异。
在本研究的局限性范围内,可以得出结论,0.2%浓度的葡萄糖酸氯己定在最短接触时间即30秒内灭活了SARS-CoV-2病毒,然而所测试的两种化合物即洗必泰和聚维酮碘均被发现对SARS-CoV-2病毒具有抗病毒活性。