索引于
  • Genamics 期刊搜索
  • 期刊目录
  • 引用因子
  • 乌尔里希的期刊目录
  • 参考搜索
  • 哈姆达大学
  • 亚利桑那州EBSCO
  • 期刊摘要索引目录
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • 普布隆斯
  • 日内瓦医学教育与研究基金会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • 谷歌学术
分享此页面
期刊传单
Flyer image

抽象的

Comparison of Antimicrobial and Wound Healing Agents on Oral Fibroblast Viability and In-vivo Bacterial Load

Bowen J*,Cole C,McGlennen R

Oral rinses are designed to restore healing (often for mouth sores) or kill oral bacteria. The balance between bactericidal and restorative effects is not often achieved, leading to unwanted side effects of the products. In this study we ran comparisons of currently available cleansing rinses, measuring possible toxic effects on gingival fibroblasts invitro and their bactericidal effects in-vivo. The commercial products tested included oral rinses based on: chlorhexidine gluconate, carbamide peroxide,aloe vera, essential oils (with and without alcohol) and a combination product with essential oils and carbamide peroxide. All products except the combination rinse caused 100% gingival fibroblast cell (HGF-1) death after a single 30 second rinse. In addition, the same products increased the cytotoxic effects of a chemotherapeutic even at its lowest dose. In a pilot human trial, an antimicrobial product (CHX) and the combination product were tested for effectiveness in reducing the bacterial load. Oral bacterial load was measured from sputum samples before and after a single rinse. Control samples were collected before and after a water rinse. Using PCR,bacterial DNA probes designed for 11 different gram-negative bacterium were tested. The combination product had the most reduction in total bacterial load, with statistically significant reduction in Aactinomycetem comitans, T forsythia, F nucleatum, P intermedia, P micros, and C species. The results suggest that antimicrobial rinses can also be harmful to gingival fibroblasts, while only one restorative rinse was not toxic to gingival fibroblasts and still showed antimicrobial effects.