Tristán LJD, Goldaracena AMP, Ramírez MCA, González AAM, Ramírez GJ

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 189-197
PDF size: 523.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Dental caries is a disease characterized by demineralization of the hard tissues of the tooth. If left untreated, it leads to cavitation, discomfort, pain, and the eventual loss of the tooth. A range of antiseptics have been used to eliminate microorganisms from cavities, one of the most common being chlorhexidine, due to the advantages it offers. Nowadays there are products available that offer not only the same microbicidal capacity, but also a greater half-life and superior tissue compatibility. One new option for cavity disinfection is pH neutral super-oxidation solution. Objective: To determine the decrease in bacterial load in the dentin of class I cavities following the application of 2% chlorhexidine compared to a neutral pH over-super-oxidized solution. Material and methods: A clinical cross-sectional study was conducted involving a total of 30 patients at the Faculty of Stomatology Clinics of the Autonomous University of San Luis Potosí, from whom 60 samples were obtained from class I cavities in first and second permanent lower molars prior to treatment and 60 following treatment. These were divided into three groups: the control group (n = 20), group A, in which 2% chlorhexidine was used (n = 20), and group B, in which a neutral pH super-oxidized solution was used (n = 20). The samples were subsequently taken to the laboratory, where serial dilution was performed; the samples were then grown in trypticase soy agar plates to enable us to count the CFUs after 24 hours of incubation. Results: A comparison was made between all of the groups to see the differences in the decrease in pre-treatment and post-treatment bacterial load. A statistically significant difference was found in the group treated with 2% chlorhexidine (p ‹ 0.01), while in the groups treated with distilled-water solution and with pH neutral super-oxidation solution, did not show any significant difference (p › 0.05) between the pretreatment and post-treatment samples. However, extremely significant statistical differences (p ‹ 0.0001) were found between the post-treatment samples of each of the treatments. Conclusions: We successfully obtained samples of lower first and second lower molars in which the number of microorganisms before and after treatment were quantified by counting CFUs. Significant differences were found between the groups; therefore, based on our results, 2% chlorhexidine is more effective as an anti-microbial disinfectant for class I cavities than a neutral pH super-oxidation solution.

REFERENCES

1. Hauser-Gerspach I, Pfäffli-Savtchenko V, Dähnhardt JE, Meyer J, Lussi A. Comparison of the immediate effects of gaseous ozone and chlorhexidine gel on bacteria in cavitated carious lesions in children in vivo. Clinical oral investigations. 2009; 13 (3): 287-291.

2. Fontana M et al. Defining dental caries for 2010 and beyond. Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54 (3): 423-440.

3. Kidd EAM. How clean must a cavity be before restoration? Caries Research. 2004; 38: 305-313.

4. Córdova JA, Hernández M, Ortiz ME. Perfil epidemiológico de la salud bucal en México 2010. México: Impresora y encuadernadora Progreso; 2011. pp. 58.

5. Marsh PD. Microbiology of dental plaque biofilms and their role in oral health and caries. Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54 (3): 441-454.

6. Serra GP. Estudio del biofilm: formación y consecuencias [Internet]. 2003 [acceso 23 de noviembre de 2008]. Disponible en: http://www.seguretatintegral.cat/noucat/recerca/linies/biorisc/alimentaria/biofilm.pdf

7. Bascones A, Morante S. Antisépticos orales. Revisión de la literatura y perspectiva actual. Avances en Periodoncia. 2006; 18 (1): 21-29.

8. Cousido MC et al. In vivo substantivity of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on salivary bacteria. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2010; 14 (4): 397-402.

9. López GKI. Eficacia y seguridad del agua de superoxidación en el manejo del acné inflamatorio de leve a moderado en la cara. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Medicina; 2011. pp. 12-15.

10. Mager HI, Tu SC, Liu YH, Deng Y, Kadish KM. Electrochemical superoxidation of flavins: generation of active precursors in luminescent model systems. Photochemistry and Photobiology. 1990; 52 (5): 1049-1056.

11. Nakae H, Inaba H. Effectiveness of electrolyzed oxidized water irrigation in a burn-wound infection model. J Trauma. 2000; 49 (3): 511-514.

12. Lara-Polanco K. Evaluación in vivo de la reducción bacteriana con el uso de instrumentación reciprocante. Tesis de Maestría San Luis Potosí: Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí; 2011.

13. Gaitán CI, González AAM, Cruz GR, Flores HE, Pozos-Guillén AJ. Efecto antimicrobiano del agua potencialmente oxidativa. Rev Odontol Mex. 2009; 13: 224-228.

14. Lula ECO et al. Microbiological analysis after complete or partial removal of carious dentin in primary teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Caries Research. 2009; 43 (5): 354.

15. Eliyas S, Briggs PF, Porter RW. Antimicrobial irrigants in endodontic therapy: 1. Root canal disinfection. Dental Update. 2009; 37 (6): 390-392.