Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 2309  
 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 113-116

Efficacy of two commonly available mouth rinses used as preprocedural rinses in children


Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Chennai, India

Correspondence Address:
Eapen Thomas
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Alapakkam Main Road, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.84682

Rights and Permissions

Aim: There are many studies on the effect of preprocedural mouth rinses in adults, but there is a dearth of the literature on the effects of these mouth rinses in children. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of two commercially available brands, one containing chlorhexidine 0.12% (Colgate Periogard) and the other containing cetylpyridinium chloride 0.05% (Johnson and Johnson's Reach) used as preprocedural mouth rinses in children. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 18 patients in the age group of 10-15 years. A crossover design was used with the random assignment of the first rinse tested and a wash out period of at least 1 week before the second rinse was used. The saliva samples were collected prerinse, 2 min, 30 min, and 60 min after rinsing with the solution. The samples were inoculated and cultured for aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms. After 48 h, the resultant bacterial colonies were counted. Results: Statistical analysis was done using Wilcoxon's signed rank test, ANOVA, and Newman-Keul's studentized range test. Periogard had the highest percentage reduction in both aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms followed by Reach and the least effective was normal saline which was used as a control. Conclusions: Periogard is comparatively better as a preprocedural mouth rinse than Reach.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4275    
    Printed183    
    Emailed6    
    PDF Downloaded462    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05