Contents - Middle East Journal of Family Medicine

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION AND
CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
The results of this study indicate that the mean scores for
group A (mean=1.5500) was considerably lower than B
(mean=3.7500) & C (mean=2.6000). The mean values for
group C further showed a reduction in the colony numbers
than B. On statistical analysis a significant difference was
found between groups C & B (p value = 0.0004).
DISCUSSION AND CONLCUSION
The oral cavity is a reservoir for commensal and pathogenic
micro-organisms. A complete state of asepsis is hardly
prevalent in the oral cavity. This however does not imply
that there is an active infection at all times, but certainly
depicts the constant presence of micro-organisms which
may result in their frequent transmission to the different
communicating regions of the oral cavity such as the
oropharnyx, lungs, nasal cavity, eustachian canal, sinuses
etc. This may not pose a significant threat in a state of
normalcy, but, in the presence of an existing infection
the normal oral micro flora itself may potentially super
add to an existing infection. Conversely, an existing focal
sepsis in the oral cavity may act as a continual supply
of pathogens and pus resulting in a chronic insidious
recurrent oropharyngeal infection of some sort which is
usually not responsive to antibiotic therapy. Such cases
usually resolve with the elimination of the source of
infection but also can be significantly controlled to a great
extent at the onset itself with a direct local reduction in the
pathogenic numbers through the use of local antiseptics
such as chlorhexidine. 15
The primary application of CHX is predominantly
restricted to field of dentistry, that too, as a post procedural
therapeutic rinse. 9 The focus must however shift, as the
study clearly evidences its potential antiseptic actions. It
will indeed be certainly beneficial if the prescription of
CHX mouth-rinse is added as an adjunct to conventional
therapy. 16
The outcome of this simple clinical trial clearly illustrates
the substantial reduction in the bacterial numbers of the
cultures obtained from samples with and without of the
use of CHX mouth rinse. It only progresses to highlight
further the compelling need to maintain oral asepsis.
Therefore, from the obtained results the authors conclude
– that a significant decrease in the bacterial count is present
with the use of CHX. Therefore the clinical relevance of
the study can substantiate the following measures:
• That it is imperative to use CHX mouth rinse as a
recommended ‘pre-procedural’ standard protocol
for all dental related procedures and prior to any
procedures performed in the oral and oropharyngeal
region.
• And further propose that it may be routinely prescribed
by other practitioners in various other specialties
of medicine routinely as a mouth rinse to augment
their conventional therapeutic methods for treating
oropharyngeal and other related infections, so as
to definitely ensure an infection free and possibly a
sterile oral and oropharyngeal environment.
REFERENCES
1. Coulter WA, Russell C. Effect of chlorhexidine on plaque
development in an artificial mouth. Microbios 1976;16:21-8.
2. Van der Weijden GA, Timmerman MF, Novotny AG, Rosema
NA, Verkerk AA. Three different rinsing times and inhibition
of plaque accumulation with chlorhexidine. J Clin Periodontol
2005;32:89-92.
3. Santos S, Herrera D, Lopez E, O’Connor A, Gonzalez I,
Sanz M. A randomized clinical trial on the short-term clinical
and microbiological effects of the adjunctive use of a 0.05%
chlorhexidine mouth rinse for patients in supportive periodontal
care. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:45-51.
4. Barasch A, Safford MM, Dapkute-Marcus I, Fine DH. Efficacy
of chlorhexidine gluconate rinse for treatment and prevention
of oral candidiasis in HIV-infected children: a pilot study. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:204-7.
5. Caso A, Hung LK, Beirne OR. Prevention of alveolar osteitis
with chlorhexidine: a meta-analytic review. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:155-9.
6. Dodd MJ, Larson PJ, Dibble SL, et al. Randomized clinical trial
of chlorhexidine versus placebo for prevention of oral mucositis
in patients receiving chemotherapy. Oncol Nurs Forum
1996;23:921-7.
7. Zamany A, Safavi K, Spangberg LS. The effect of chlorhexidine
as an endodontic disinfectant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol
Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:578-81.
8. Pitten FA, Kiefer T, Buth C, Doelken G, Kramer A. Do cancer
patients with chemotherapy-induced leukopenia benefit from an
antiseptic chlorhexidine-based oral rinse A double-blind, blockrandomized,
controlled study. J Hosp Infect 2003;53:283-91.
9. Van Strydonck DA, Timmerman MF, van der Velden U, van der
Weijden GA. Plaque inhibition of two commercially available
chlorhexidine mouthrinses. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:305-9.
10. Sreenivasan PK, Gittins E. The effects of a chlorhexidine
mouthrinse on culturable microorganisms of the tongue and
saliva. Microbiol Res 2004;159:365-70.
11. Cheesebrough M. Medical Laboratory manual for tropical
countries, Vol. II - Microbiology: ELBS, 1991.
12. Greenwood D, Slack RCB, Peutherer JF. A Guide to Microbial
Infections : Pathogenesis, Immunity, Laboratory Diagnosis &
Control. 16 ed: Churchill Livingstone, 2003.
13. Barer MR, Harwood CR. Bacterial viability and cultability,
1999.
14. Greenwood D. Medical Microbiology - Chapter 7. 16 ed:
Churchill Livingstone, 2003.
15. Buckner RY, Kayrouz GA, Briner W. Reduction of oral microbes
by a single chlorhexidine rinse. Compendium 1994;15:512, 514,
516 passim; quiz 520.
16. Hennessy B, Joyce A. A survey of preprocedural antiseptic
mouth rinse use in Army dental clinics. Mil Med 2004;169:600-
3.
13
MEJFM - Volume 3 Issue 5 - November 2005