An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses

J. Gultz, James Kaim, J. DeLeo IV, W. Scherer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The purpose of this in vivo study was to determine and compare the anti-microbial effectiveness of three commercial mouthrinses and a water control. The antimicrobial efficacy of the products was determined against aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Twenty human subjects participated in this study. At each experimental session for a given subject, a pre-test saliva sample was taken. This sample was divided and used to grow three bacteria cultures under the different incubation environments. After giving the pre-test sample, the subject rinsed with one of the mouthrinses or the water control for 30 seconds, then waited one hour, at which time a post-test saliva sample was collected. Again, the sample was divided and used to culture the different types of bacteria. Following a 48-hour incubation period, the numbers of microbial colonies on each plate were counted and compared. The results indicated that all of the mouthrinses tested performed significantly better than the water control. Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy® and Peridex® did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in inhibiting aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Both Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy and Peridex were significantly more effective than Listerine in inhibiting the three different types of bacteria.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)43-45
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Clinical Dentistry
Volume9
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1998

Fingerprint

Aerobic Bacteria
Anaerobic Bacteria
Gingiva
Bacteria
Saliva
Mouth
Water
Therapeutics
chlorhexidine gluconate
Listerine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses. / Gultz, J.; Kaim, James; DeLeo IV, J.; Scherer, W.

In: Journal of Clinical Dentistry, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998, p. 43-45.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gultz, J. ; Kaim, James ; DeLeo IV, J. ; Scherer, W. / An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses. In: Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 1998 ; Vol. 9, No. 2. pp. 43-45.
@article{9428c408ee54433691f1de3e1846c9c5,
title = "An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses",
abstract = "The purpose of this in vivo study was to determine and compare the anti-microbial effectiveness of three commercial mouthrinses and a water control. The antimicrobial efficacy of the products was determined against aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Twenty human subjects participated in this study. At each experimental session for a given subject, a pre-test saliva sample was taken. This sample was divided and used to grow three bacteria cultures under the different incubation environments. After giving the pre-test sample, the subject rinsed with one of the mouthrinses or the water control for 30 seconds, then waited one hour, at which time a post-test saliva sample was collected. Again, the sample was divided and used to culture the different types of bacteria. Following a 48-hour incubation period, the numbers of microbial colonies on each plate were counted and compared. The results indicated that all of the mouthrinses tested performed significantly better than the water control. Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy{\circledR} and Peridex{\circledR} did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in inhibiting aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Both Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy and Peridex were significantly more effective than Listerine in inhibiting the three different types of bacteria.",
author = "J. Gultz and James Kaim and {DeLeo IV}, J. and W. Scherer",
year = "1998",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "43--45",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Dentistry",
issn = "0895-8831",
publisher = "Professional Audience Communications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses

AU - Gultz, J.

AU - Kaim, James

AU - DeLeo IV, J.

AU - Scherer, W.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - The purpose of this in vivo study was to determine and compare the anti-microbial effectiveness of three commercial mouthrinses and a water control. The antimicrobial efficacy of the products was determined against aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Twenty human subjects participated in this study. At each experimental session for a given subject, a pre-test saliva sample was taken. This sample was divided and used to grow three bacteria cultures under the different incubation environments. After giving the pre-test sample, the subject rinsed with one of the mouthrinses or the water control for 30 seconds, then waited one hour, at which time a post-test saliva sample was collected. Again, the sample was divided and used to culture the different types of bacteria. Following a 48-hour incubation period, the numbers of microbial colonies on each plate were counted and compared. The results indicated that all of the mouthrinses tested performed significantly better than the water control. Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy® and Peridex® did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in inhibiting aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Both Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy and Peridex were significantly more effective than Listerine in inhibiting the three different types of bacteria.

AB - The purpose of this in vivo study was to determine and compare the anti-microbial effectiveness of three commercial mouthrinses and a water control. The antimicrobial efficacy of the products was determined against aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Twenty human subjects participated in this study. At each experimental session for a given subject, a pre-test saliva sample was taken. This sample was divided and used to grow three bacteria cultures under the different incubation environments. After giving the pre-test sample, the subject rinsed with one of the mouthrinses or the water control for 30 seconds, then waited one hour, at which time a post-test saliva sample was collected. Again, the sample was divided and used to culture the different types of bacteria. Following a 48-hour incubation period, the numbers of microbial colonies on each plate were counted and compared. The results indicated that all of the mouthrinses tested performed significantly better than the water control. Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy® and Peridex® did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in inhibiting aerobic, microaerophilic, and anaerobic bacteria. Both Herbal Mouth and Gum Therapy and Peridex were significantly more effective than Listerine in inhibiting the three different types of bacteria.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032250565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032250565&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 43

EP - 45

JO - Journal of Clinical Dentistry

JF - Journal of Clinical Dentistry

SN - 0895-8831

IS - 2

ER -