Antimicrobial efficacy of Xylitol, Probiotic and Chlorhexidine mouth rinses among children and elderly population at high risk for dental caries - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Q2 Medicine
N C Krupa, H M Thippeswamy, B R Chandrashekar
{"title":"Antimicrobial efficacy of Xylitol, Probiotic and Chlorhexidine mouth rinses among children and elderly population at high risk for dental caries - A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"N C Krupa,&nbsp;H M Thippeswamy,&nbsp;B R Chandrashekar","doi":"10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2.1772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chlorhexidine is considered the most potent chemotherapeutic agent against Streptococcus mutans. However, its side effects due to prolonged use, indicates need for alternatives. The study intended to assess and compare antimicrobial efficacies of probiotic, xylitol and chlorhexidine mouth rinses in children and elderly.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was a Double blind Randomized Controlled Trial conducted among residential school children aged 5-12 years and elderly greater than 60 years residing in old age homes. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04399161). 30 participants each among children and elderly were chosen based on eligibility criterion (high risk for caries). They were further randomly divided into 3 groups with 10 participants in each group. Participants were asked to rinse with 15 ml of freshly prepared mouth rinses once daily for 2 minutes for 14 days. Antimicrobial efficacy was determined by assessing change in Streptococcus mutans levels in dental plaque.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant reduction in Streptococcus mutans counts were observed in both children and elderly (Chlorhexidine: mean difference = 3.11 log10CFU/g, p = 0.022, Xylitol: mean difference = 0.93 log10CFU/g, p = 0.046, Probiotic: mean difference = 1.91 log10CFU/g, p = 0.023 in children); (Chlorhexidine: mean difference = 2.23 log10CFU/g, p = 0.004, Xylitol: mean difference = 1.39 log10CFU/g, p = 0.009, Probiotic: mean difference = 1.61 log10CFU/g, p = 0.018 in elderly). Intergroup comparison showed no significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Antimicrobial efficacy of xylitol and probiotic mouth rinses were comparable to that of chlorhexidine in both children and elderly. Probiotics could potentially be more efficacious than xylitol among children.</p>","PeriodicalId":35174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene","volume":"63 2","pages":"E282-E287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6b/cf/jpmh-2022-02-e282.PMC9351416.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2.1772","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Chlorhexidine is considered the most potent chemotherapeutic agent against Streptococcus mutans. However, its side effects due to prolonged use, indicates need for alternatives. The study intended to assess and compare antimicrobial efficacies of probiotic, xylitol and chlorhexidine mouth rinses in children and elderly.

Methods: The study was a Double blind Randomized Controlled Trial conducted among residential school children aged 5-12 years and elderly greater than 60 years residing in old age homes. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04399161). 30 participants each among children and elderly were chosen based on eligibility criterion (high risk for caries). They were further randomly divided into 3 groups with 10 participants in each group. Participants were asked to rinse with 15 ml of freshly prepared mouth rinses once daily for 2 minutes for 14 days. Antimicrobial efficacy was determined by assessing change in Streptococcus mutans levels in dental plaque.

Results: Significant reduction in Streptococcus mutans counts were observed in both children and elderly (Chlorhexidine: mean difference = 3.11 log10CFU/g, p = 0.022, Xylitol: mean difference = 0.93 log10CFU/g, p = 0.046, Probiotic: mean difference = 1.91 log10CFU/g, p = 0.023 in children); (Chlorhexidine: mean difference = 2.23 log10CFU/g, p = 0.004, Xylitol: mean difference = 1.39 log10CFU/g, p = 0.009, Probiotic: mean difference = 1.61 log10CFU/g, p = 0.018 in elderly). Intergroup comparison showed no significant difference.

Conclusions: Antimicrobial efficacy of xylitol and probiotic mouth rinses were comparable to that of chlorhexidine in both children and elderly. Probiotics could potentially be more efficacious than xylitol among children.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

木糖醇、益生菌和氯己定漱口水对龋齿高危儿童和老年人的抗菌效果——一项随机对照试验
氯己定被认为是抗变形链球菌最有效的化疗药物。然而,由于其长期使用的副作用,表明需要替代品。本研究旨在评估和比较益生菌、木糖醇和氯己定漱口水在儿童和老年人中的抗菌效果。方法:采用双盲随机对照试验,对5 ~ 12岁的寄宿学校儿童和60岁以上的敬老院老人进行研究。(ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04399161)。根据资格标准(龋齿高风险),在儿童和老年人中各选择30名参与者。再随机分为3组,每组10人。参与者被要求每天用15毫升新鲜配制的漱口水冲洗一次,持续2分钟,持续14天。抗菌效果是通过评估牙菌斑中变形链球菌水平的变化来确定的。结果:儿童和老年人的变形链球菌计数均显著降低(氯己定:平均差值= 3.11 log10CFU/g, p = 0.022,木糖醇:平均差值= 0.93 log10CFU/g, p = 0.046,益生菌:平均差值= 1.91 log10CFU/g, p = 0.023);(氯己定:平均差值= 2.23 log10CFU/g, p = 0.004;木糖醇:平均差值= 1.39 log10CFU/g, p = 0.009;益生菌:平均差值= 1.61 log10CFU/g, p = 0.018)组间比较差异无统计学意义。结论:木糖醇和益生菌漱口水在儿童和老年人中的抗菌效果与氯己定相当。益生菌对儿童可能比木糖醇更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The journal is published on a four-monthly basis and covers the field of epidemiology and community health. The journal publishes original papers and proceedings of Symposia and/or Conferences which should be submitted in English. Papers are accepted on their originality and general interest. Ethical considerations will be taken into account.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信