Research: GULTZ and colleagues,

Listed in Issue 49

Abstract

GULTZ and colleagues, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York USA determined and compared the antimicrobial effectiveness of 3 commercial mouthrinses and a water control.

Background

Methodology

Antimicrobial efficacy of these products was determined against aerobic, mirco-aerophilic and anaerobic bacteria. 20 people participated in the study. A pre-test saliva sample was taken at each experimental session for each person, which was divided and used to grow 3 bacterial cultures under the different incubation environments. Following giving the pre-test sample, the person rinsed with one of the mouthrinses or the water control for 30 seconds, waited one hour, and then gave a post-test saliva sample, which again was divided and used to culture the different bacteria. After the 48-hour incubation period, the bacterial colonies on each plate were counted and compared.

Results

All the mouthrinses used performed significantly better than the water control. Herbal mouth and gum therapy and Peridex were not statistically significantly different in their inhibition of aerobic, microaerophilic and anaerobic bacteria. However, both Herbal mouth and gum therapy and Peridex were significantly more effective than Listerine in their inhibition of the 3 different types of bacteria.

Conclusion

References

Gultz J et al. An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry 9(2): 43-5. 1998.

Munro Hall Clinic 2019

IJCA 2018 New Skyscraper

Scientific and Medical Network 2

Cycle India 2020

Walk on the Wide Side Trek Kenya 2020

Big Heart Bike Ride South Africa 2020

top of the page