Contamination of ınterdental brushes and dental floss with oral bacteria

Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the contamination levels of interdental brush and dental floss and also to investigate the viable bacteria on interdental brushes after 24 hours.

📊

Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Two separate interdental spaces were chosen from 10 patients with chronic periodontitis for the contamination level investigation and five patients for bacterial persisten- cy.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:For this reason both cleaning tools can act as a risk factor about spreading bacteria inside the oral cavity.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the contamination levels of interdental brush and dental floss and also to investigate the viable bacteria on interdental brushes after 24 hours. Material and Methods: Two separate interdental spaces were chosen from 10 patients with chronic periodontitis for the contamination level investigation and five patients for bacterial persisten- cy. After cleaning, interdental brush and dental floss were cut from surfaces that contact the interden- tal sulcus and were evaluated in terms of total, facultative, obligatory and black pigmented anaerobic bacteria counts. Results: There was no difference between interdental brush and dental floss regarding to the num- bers of bacteria. Prevotella intermedia sensu lato was detected from 75% of the brushes after 24 h, which black pigmented anaerobic rods were detected in subgingival plaque samples (n=4) taken from the same regions. Conclusion: In this research, interdental brush and dental floss are contaminated by subgingival microbiota at similar levels and oral bacteria remained on interdental brushes for 24 h. For this reason both cleaning tools can act as a risk factor about spreading bacteria inside the oral cavity.

Özet

Amaç: Arayüz fırçası ve diş ipinin subgingival plak bakterileri ile kontaminasyon düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması ve arayüz fırçasının kullanıldıktan 24 saat sonra üzerindeki canlı bakteri varlığının incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kontaminasyon düzeylerinin incelenmesi için 10, bakteri kalıcılığının incelenmesi için beş kronik periodontitisli hastanın iki ayrı arayüzü aynı marka arayüz fırçası ve diş ipi ile temizlendi ve subgingival plak örnekleri alındı. Araçların ara yüze temas eden kısımları kesilerek total, fakültatif anaerop, zorunlu anaerop ve siyah pigmentli anaerop bakteri sayıları yönünden incelendi. Bulgular: Arayüz fırçası ve diş ipi arasında incelenen bakteri sayıları yönünden anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmadı. Subgingival plak örneklerinde siyah pigmentli anaerop gram negatif çomakların saptandığı bölgelerde (n=4) kullanılan arayüz fırçalarının %75inde (n=3) 24 saat sonra Prevotella intermedia sensu lato saptandı. Sonuç: Bu çalışmada arayüz fırçası ve diş ipi subgingival mikrobiyota ile benzer düzeyde kontamine olmuş; arayüz fırçası üzerinde anaerop ağız bakterilerinin 24 saat oda ısısında canlı kalabildiği gösterilmiştir. Bu nedenle her iki temizleme aracının bakterilerin ağız içine yayılmasında risk faktörü olarak rol oynayabilecekleri düşünülmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPCUOĞLU, N., KÜLEKÇİ, G., YILDIZ, S., YEK, E., DADAŞLI, F., DULE, J., ÇAYIRCI, M., ÇİNTAN, S. (2022). Contamination of ınterdental brushes and dental floss with oral bacteria. İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3, 9–14. https://ajindex.com/articles/552837

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

Listgarten MA. Pathogenesis of pe- riodontitis. J Clin Periodontol, 1986; 13: 418-30
American Academy of Periodontology; Research, Science and Therapy Commit- tee. Treatment of plaque-induced gingivitis, chronic periodontitis, and other clinical con- ditions. J Periodontol, 2001; 72: 1790-800
Glass RT, Jensen HG. More on the contaminated toothbrush: the viral story. Quintessence Int, 1988; 19: 713-16
Glass RT, Lare MM. Toothbrush con- tamination: a potential health risk? Quintes- sence Int, 1986; 17: 39-42
Nelson-Filho P, Faria G, da Silva RA, Rossi MA, Ito IY. Evaluation of the contamination and disinfection methods of toothbrushes used by 24- to 48-month-old children. J Dent Child (Chic), 2006; 73(3): 152-58
Efstratiou M, Papainonannou W, Na- kou M, Ktenas E, Vrotsos IA, Panis V. Con- tamination of a toothbrush with antibacterial properties by oral microorganisms. J Dent, 2007; 35: 331-37
Quirynen M, De Soete M, Pauwels M, Goossens K, Teughels W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. Bacterial survival rate on tooth and interdental brushes in relation to the use of toothpaste. J Clin Periodontol, 2001; 28: 1106-14
Quirynen M, De Soete M, Pauwels M, Gizani S, van Meerbeek B, van Steen- berghe D. Can toothpaste or a toothbrush with antibacterial tufts prevent toothbrush contamination? J Periodontol, 2003; 74(3): 312-22
Bunetel L, Tricot-Doluex S, Agnani G, Bonnaure-Mallet M. In vitro evaluation of the retention of three species of pathogenic microorganisms by three different types of toothbrushes. Oral Microbiol Immunol, 2000; 15: 313-16
Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand, 1964; 22: 121-35
Mühlemann HR, Son S. Gingival sul- cus bleeding--a leading symptom in initial gingivitis. Helv Odontol Acta, 1971; 15(2): 107-13
Dahlén G, Pipattanagovit P, Rosling B, Möller AJ. A comparison of two transport media for saliva and subgingival samples. Oral Microbiol Immunol, 1993; 8: 375-82
Jousimies-Somer HR, Summanen PH, Citron DM, Baron EJ, Wexler HM, Finegold SM. Wadsworth-KTL anaerobic bacteriology manuel. 6th ed., Korea: Star Publishing Co, 2002, p.92-97
Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Cugini MA, Smith C, Kent RLJr. Microbial com- plexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Peri- odontol, 1998; 25: 13444
Gjermo P, Flotra L. The effect of dif- ferent methods of interdental cleansing. J Periodontal Res, 1970; 5: 23036. 1