Antibacterial and antiplaque efficacy of a lactoperoxidase-thiocyanate-hydrogen-peroxide-system-containing lozenge.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial agents are considered valuable adjuncts to mechanical methods of plaque control. However, their long-term use can be limited because of side effects. Therefore, using physiological substances is promising due to no risk of development, for example, of microbial resistances, allergies or DNA damaging. The lactoperoxidase-thiocyanate-hydrogen peroxide system (LPO-system) is a highly effective antimicrobial system. This study aimed to evaluate in a randomized study with a four-replicate cross-over design the effectiveness of two oral hygiene lozenges containing LPO-system in oral hygiene. RESULTS: After using the mouth rinse as positive control (A) and allocated test lozenges (B) (0.083% H2O2) & (C) (0.04% H2O2) for 4 days instead of the normal oral hygiene procedures (tooth brushing etc.), Listerine rinse (A) was statistically significantly more effective than the LPO-system-lozenge with 0.083% H2O2, the LPO-system-lozenge with 0.04% H2O2, and the placebo lozenge (D) in inhibiting plaque. Lozenges B and C were statistically significantly more effective than the placebo lozenge, but no statistically significant differences could be observed between them. The LPO-system-lozenge (B) reduced statistically significantly more S. mutans than the LPO-system-lozenge with (C) and the placebo lozenge (D). The LPO-system-lozenge (C) reduced statistically significantly more Lactobacilli than Listerine (A), the LPO-system-lozenge (B) and the placebo lozenge (D). There were no statistically significant differences in the total CFUs between Listerine rinse, the LPO-system-lozenge with 0.083% H2O2 (B), the LPO-system-lozenge with 0.04% H2O2 (C), and the placebo lozenge (D). On day 5 there were no differences of the OSCN--values between all A, B, C, and D. However, the SCN--values increased over the days in both LPO-system-lozenges (B/C). The statistically significant differences between B/C and A/D on day 5 were as followed: A to B p = 0.0268; A to C p = 0.0035; B to D p = 0.0051; C to D p = 0.0007. Only in the group of Listerine (A) increased the NO3-/NO2--quotient over the test time, which indicates a reduction of nitrate-reducing bacteria. On Day 5 the statistically significant difference between A and B was p = 0.0123. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that lozenges containing a complete LPO-system, inhibiting plaque regrowth and reducing cariogenic bacteria, may be used in the daily oral hygiene.

Hand antisepsis without decreasing efficacy by shortening the rub-in time of alcohol-based handrubs to 15 seconds.

BACKGROUND: A previous study among neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) nurses showed that the antibacterial efficacy of alcohol-based handrubs (ABHR) can be achieved in 15 s instead of 30 s with a significant increase in the frequency of hand antisepsis. This study aimed to examine 15-s vs 30-s antisepsis performance by measuring microbial load on fingertips and compliance among nurses in a low-risk gynaecological ward. METHODS: An independent trained observer monitored the frequency and compliance with hand antisepsis during shifts in a crossover design. Fingertips including thumbs were rinsed in soy broth before hand rubbing at the beginning of a shift and then hourly to determine the bacterial load. Performance activity was assigned to the contamination class of the Fulkerson scale. Immediately before the lunch break, volunteers cleaned their hands for a randomly determined application time of 15 or 30 s. RESULTS: Examination of bacterial load on fingertips revealed no difference between 15 vs 30 s application time. Controlled hand antisepsis before the lunch break also showed no difference in efficacy for either test series. Participants rubbing for 15 s were more likely to perform hand antisepsis compared with those rubbing for 30 s (P=0.2). The compliance increased from 54.7% to 69.5% in the 15-s trial. DISCUSSION: Shortening the duration for hand antisepsis did not decrease efficacy. Shortening the application time to 15 s should be considered within the critical components of a successful multimodal intervention strategy to improve hand-hygiene compliance in clinical practice.

Measurements of chlorhexidine, p-chloroaniline, and p-chloronitrobenzene in saliva after mouth wash before and after operation with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate in maxillofacial surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

Chlorhexidine gluconate is used to prevent the accumulation of dental plaque and gingivitis, infection of the surgical site, and ventilator-associated pneumonia in maxillofacial surgery, but it is not clear whether the metabolites of chlorhexidine are detectable in the patient's saliva at clinically relevant concentrations. Forty-three patients who had orofacial operations were randomised to use a 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (n=23), or an octenidine-based, chlorhexidine-free (n=20), mouthwash once preoperatively and three times daily for five postoperative days. After the first, 8.7 (23.3) mg/L chlorhexidine (0.7%-2.5% of the total amount used) was measured in saliva. The concentration increased to 15.2 (6.2) mg/L after the second rinse (first postoperative day), and peaked at 29.4 (11.2) mg/L on the fourth postoperative day. It remained detectable for up to 12hours after the last one, but was not detectable in serum or urine at any time. The potentially carcinogenic metabolite p-chloroaniline was detectable in saliva at higher concentrations in the chlorhexidine group (0.55mg/L) than the octenidine group (0.21mg/L), and p-chloronitrobenzene was detected in both groups in only minimal concentrations (0.001-0.21mg/L). Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwashes do increase the concentration of p-chloroaniline, but a single use seems to be safe. Whether prolonged exposure over many years may have carcinogenic potential is still not clear. Based on the hitherto unknown kinetics of p-chloroaniline in saliva, the recent recommendation of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA to limit the use of a chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash to a maximum of six months seems to be justified.