RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the effect of using two preoperative mouthwashes (0.12% chlorhexidine and 0.2% tea tree oil) on the number of colonies of oral microorganisms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants who needed to be rehabilitated with dental implants were included in this study. They were randomly divided into two groups (chlorhexidine group and tea tree group; n = 20, each). For each group, saliva samples were collected at four different times: T0 (initially)-before using the mouthwash, T1-after 1 minute of using the mouthwash, T10-after 10 minutes of using the mouthwash, and T60-after 60 minutes of using the mouthwash. At T0 and T1, saliva samples were collected before implant placement surgery, and at T10 and T60, saliva samples were collected during surgery. In each group, one saliva sample was collected at each evaluated time point for each patient, totaling 4 saliva collections per patient. MSB agar (Mitis-Salivarius-Bacitracin) and BHI agar (Brain Heart Infusion) culture media were used in each group. Microbial colony counts were performed using a magnifying glass and recorded in CFU (colony forming units)/mL. Statistical analyses were performed using the Friedman, Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Based on MSB agar culture medium, at T0, the number of Streptococcus mutans colonies in the chlorhexidine group was significantly higher compared with the tea tree group (p <0.05; MSB agar). The chlorhexidine group showed significantly lower CFU/mL values for Streptococcus mutans at T1, T10, and T60 compared with the tea tree group (p <0.05; MSB agar). Based on BHI agar culture medium, at T0, the chlorhexidine group showed a significantly lower value of CFU/mL compared with the tea tree group (p < 0.05; BHI agar). At T1, T10, and T60, the chlorhexidine group showed significantly lower CFU/mL values compared with the tea tree group (p <0.05; BHI agar). CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine is more indicated as a preoperative mouthwash than tea tree oil, due to its significantly more effective antimicrobial action.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The use of vasoconstrictors combined with local anaesthetics (LAs) in dentistry for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still controversial in the scientific literature. It raises concerns regarding the possibility of transient episodes, triggering negative cardiovascular outcomes. METHOD/DESIGN: Trials eligible for our systematic review will enrol patients with CVD who have undergone dental treatments carried out with the use of LAs by comparing two arms: LAs with vasoconstrictors and LAs without vasoconstrictors. The research will be conducted in the electronic databases, namely Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar (via Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Web of Science, from their inception to December 2017, without any restrictions in terms of language and status of publication. A team of reviewers will independently assess titles, abstracts and complete text to determine eligibility. For eligible studies, the same reviewers will perform data extraction and evaluate the risk of bias in the selected articles. The selected outcomes comprise death, mortality by a specific cause, stroke, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation, pain, bleeding, arrhythmias, ischaemic episodes, anxiety, adverse effects, changes in blood pressure, changes in heart rate, anxiety and results obtained via oximetry. Whenever possible, we will conduct a meta-analysis to establish the effects of LAs with and without vasoconstrictors in the patients with CVD, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation classification system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committee approval was not necessary because this is a protocol of systematic review. This systematic review will be submitted for presentation at conferences and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our review will assess the risks of cardiovascular events when using LAs with and without vasoconstrictors in patients with CVD, focusing on important clinical outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016045421.