An in Vitro Effectiveness Evaluation of Chemical Agents for Toothbrushes Disinfection

Ingrid Merchán, Rommie Lucía Merino-Alado, Elsi Natali Briceño, Gustavo Moronta, Maria Jose Oviedo, Anny Ortega, Ericka Perez, Andrea Pestana, Maria Alejandra Rodriguez

Abstract


Objective: To evaluate in the vitro effectiveness of three chemical agents for toothbrush disinfection. Material and Methods: Sixteen new toothbrushes were evaluated, previously sterilized and classified in five experimental groups (n=3) and one item as control. Three chemical agents were assessed: 0.12% Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), essential oil mouth rinse (Listerine) and 3.5% Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). The five selected strains were inoculated on toothbrushes and incubated for a 24 hours period and 37°C temperature in aerobic conditions. The incubated toothbrushes were immersed for a 15 min period into selected chemical agents and after drying in a controlled air stream, again re-cultured into enriched broth. A comparison was made between the initial and final microorganisms density recovered after chemical disinfection based on Mc Farland scale. The data obtained was compared by descriptive analysis and ANOVA methodology. Results: 3.5% NaOCl was the most effective chemical agent for toothbrush disinfection followed by CHX; Listerine was not effective to eliminate the inoculated bacteria in toothbrushes. Conclusion: 3.5% NaOCl and 0.12% CHX are the most effective chemical agents for toothbrush disinfection and Listerine was only effective against C. albicans.


Keywords


Microbiology; Disinfection; Toothbrushing; Sodium Hypochlorite.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Taji S, Rogers AH. ADRF Trebitsch Scholarship. The microbial contamination of toothbrushes. A pilot study. Aust Dent J 1998; 43(2):128-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1998.tb06101.x

Anand PJ, Athira S, Chandramohan S, Ranjith K, VeenaRaj V, Manjula VD. Comparison of efficacy of herbal disinfectants with chlorhexidine mouthwash on decontamination of toothbrushes: An experimental trial. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016; 6(1):22-7.

https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.175406

Frazelle MR, Munro CL. Toothbrush contamination: A review of the literature. Nurs Res Pract 2012; 2012:420630. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/420630

Pesevska S, Ivanovski K, Mindova S, Kaftandzieva A, Ristoska S, Stefanovska E, et al. Bacterial contamination of the toothbrushes. J Int Dent Med Res 2016; 9(1):6-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/420630

Merino-Alado R, Garcés A, Chianale E, Corcuera C, El Fakih W, Galviz D, et al. Isolation of fungi and gram negative bacteria from toothbrushes and bathroom bioaerosols. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr 2018; 18(1): e3994. https://doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2018.181.43

Sato S, Ito IY, Lara H, Panzeri H, Albuquerque R, Pedrazzi V. Bacterial survival rate on toothbrushes and their decontamination with antimicrobial solutions. J Appl Oral Sci 2004; 12(2):99-103. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572004000200003

Basman A, Peker I, Akca G, Sarikir C, Toraman M, Celik I. Evaluation of toothbrush disinfection via different methods. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30(1):e6.

https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0006

Komiyama EY, Back-Brito GN, Balducci I, Koga-Ito CY. Evaluation of alternative methods for the disinfection of toothbrushes. Braz Oral Res 2010; 24(1):28-33.

https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242010000100005

Mobin M, Borba CM, Filho CA, Tapety FI, Noleto IM, Teles JB. Analysis of fungal contamination and disinfection of toothbrushes. Acta Odontol. Latinoam 2011; 24(1):86-91.

Kuhn L, Werner C, Aiache D, Vicente AP, Andrade R. Microbiological contamination of toothbrushes and identification of a decontamination protocol using chlorhexidine spray. Rev Odonto Cienc 2012; 27(3):213-7.

Peker I, Akca G, Sarikir C, Toraman M, Celik I. Effectiveness of alternative methods for toothbrush disinfection: An in vitro study. Scientific World Journal 2014; 2014:726190. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/726190

Tomar P, Hongal S, Saxena V, Jain M, Rana K, Ganavadiya R. Evaluating sanitization of toothbrushes using ultra violet rays and 0.2% chlorhexidine solution: A comparative clinical study. J Basic Clin Pharm 2014; 6(1):12-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-0105.145769

Busato C, Cavazzola A, Ortega A, Guaré A, Saleh Neto A. The use of sodium hypochlorite for toothbrushes decontamination: In vitro study. Rev Odontol UNESP 2015; 44(6):335-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.04214

Ferreira CA, Savi GD, Panatto AP, Generoso JS, Barichello T. Microbiological evaluation of bristles of frequently used toothbrushes. Dental Press J Orthod 2012; 17(4):72-6.

https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-9451201200040001

Bhat PK, Badiyani BK, Sarkar S, Chengappa S, Bhaskar NN. Effectiveness of antimicrobial solutions on streptococcus mutans in used toothbrushes. World J Dent 2012; 3(1):6-10.

https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1119

Nanjunda-Swamy K, Madihalli AU, Prashanth MB. Evaluation of Streptococcus mutans contamination of tooth brushes and their decontamination using various disinfectants - An in vitro study. J Adv Oral Res 2011; 2(3):23-30.

Nelson-Filho P, Macari S, Faria G, Assed S, Ito IY. Microbial contamination of toothbrushes and their decontamination. Pediatr Dent 2000; 22(5):381-4.

Usha K, Sivakumar N, Abinash M. Efficacy of various disinfectants on microbially contaminated toothbrushes due to brushing. Contemp Clin Dent 2011; 2(4):302-7.

https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.91793

Bandara H, Matsubara V, Samaranayake L. Future therapies targeted towards eliminating Candida biofilms and associated infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2017; 15(3):299-318. https://doi.org/10.180/14787210.2017.1268530




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.08

PBOCI IS A MEMBER OF CROSSREF AND ALL THE CONTENT OF ITS JOURNALS ARE LINKED BY DOIS THROUGH CROSSREF.