uMiueinis Original Article mafauisulse€nnalunrsandtauuaiigeludanhnvasnrs ve v a 8 wv ‘Vdineniiawilin aaaantau 0.12% waswureniiourhnailiaa awa shasta, aoe unncia (nanlataauaa 0.004 %) durlnena*, ast fimed** wiN*, 73 satin ) a o ae mattedis iaquiemadifloqusstnbuave nbertwtinaulden (Anelsdafuan 0.004 x) wieutourinhentousn raniandiu 0.122 tunnrandauuntdehahone Tnouiornadetuthwininwnivnumedaa t04 am du 4 ng wdorimataushemtudin 4 wie Aa vhentowlanasoientau 0.12 erysonnnasonaay thenfawlinawien uae snansuliiea Tnefimafiushenelune vhmuunnduusciudradouueriteusaein wanmnnnasnuiahentwhneneser’ anifouueiieluderdinandshentuuinaidan ovation Taiuansraiuerwaonsiuides matishertauhnanetaniéu 0.12% euttulonrieunstins Yuansay wansnaniw saltoalionailinnumadhentzavinensentin 0.12 x umn shenthuhindrniuanlsneatoniniinnanliy weolAuithentawdrnasaiontay 0.12% thminvane (chlorhexidine 0.1 2x w/v) usihethinanelaiuauan, 0.004% UExIAI/UINIAS (chloroxylenol 0.004% v/v) wiofidotianimhertawhnawiian (special mouth wash) thentawhnaneioniay dhahentamhntléiy mavaniuthiiae@ndonbannaadouunidelaiosin sidinviniedy avian 2 fisdainr riounredinber uurnuR: couse 180 wifi naierniaushennfamah nusigerin uhniaho wAl@omedEouued aban tunnsaaaaertin aH ae pra reaenes tree Fouuatietisigluannelioantiaulé 3 flue nosénwvtuansliciwh a1 1 30, iitoontiauactiponaay im 0.12% fulaeamBnalunre snaas dseandnatunvianidoludosin ams enauan ‘Tumalinnonbinsinwmorvensn unenaitildwns’“Femourtnudouluaife sarvsussusush Tudosuineguaw ytHAanauldoudasnrsiurelne tamermiaa Anemuiuurtuuacda nonvindarerithiiin namaanansandoyfodanhiniuacdin wassomhars wihquan’ anasendia (CHIN, C,) fienninjunn olafin Dalutilut (cationic bisbiguanide) rivieia (pKa) 10.3 uae 2.2 aanqnilddlucniies (pH) 5.5 - 7 Falemnareny Coan eine wan waza Usefindmlumseanant smmtsilowsine7 roserunanncm and x0 Inorwonoso wat10. J. Dent. Assoc. Thai. Yo, 63.No. 1 January-February 2003 azoaieime (aerosal) dWensememnnainwmeviuA nat nosumsfinndudich mbieleommnnth qs indorgatajugannlsin moiavuenndah nafs mesiesondolieluionhinfiinninnsinemevivanss vhlidelsafagtushowuacusinariy yauniduudtion urimmelugivesscnosenme ***" anaiandia naa0 anidouuafiiobahmeldanindndy’ snmasaaiten Wirunaaientauiuiienowlrneindu win Amnosiu ustivhadlnfenencley Inunrahundands melas tiles pnovendauunciainaiiuswransadiaioatouuariiela shonelitndiuars usmewdtevin 5 dala aaoiandin maninanvanmdouuaneluhaelmnnnd daw uotinhwrlumennsalsvinansnamuiwcudouueriiialy thoneiiam 30 wifi uns 1 dala Wannndrnaoiantin adreihtodaaly wimonds 3 dlus sutts 7 dlwaaramn saviinndouuarideludmnelélndiaearia'* FnquaewedasAnwnit Rouliouvieulse Andnayos shentawlannnesanditu 0.1 2x washer auaneuléen Tunrsaatouuafiselwhoe laa tAlssgnlld dovdumabuthnrioumsimainnmeriuvenssy toa Viarndaluianlinfaraiianrsyinssielwvneiny7 aneviuansan Faqqunsniuartins ngufinen nguanun Ae ermaitarviniinanwrancrinn unnemsad annineriasonswedun’ 4ldacmedode wloudrdaumaidesnaw 104 #4 Tron raanwndldshans Ag sOMuseiuATMtwsouTNAMeNsAMTANODSIMLY, made anciiinunmemand xninewderceuniunt ngudnwihittamecuy welsludoninfduvudity maaaudorouitardodou (soft tissue infection) Iildlden Ufsuenfoshontawindulalutas 2 aUeniiowhins 380 bidlseThuvttheauan difuludonnetiaies 20 4 vanruiingumsanwctneuenaraumarion udrtaton shosrevnusiscina nesBAuidoumeduswnanled (strati- fication and double blind randomized technique) Dusan 4 nga 25 an usincndaaldine 10 mm dndo 15 auogludaiyy 18-26 4 ahenfauhn shondawinitdturamanas ir shenFauinana won 0.12% emaenraniendan shendawhnewkiea uacermnansiliden thenfautlnronaeadenianadans scusviinunnem and xine doaenaruetuns mantis meisundvinen ancrumuwnueraad qwiasnsat ayninend” emaaniidoulsenavday nfawtinhendon, dan ondivléshndnunadaenarnad arwlsenausaaen touuinidnenou unnedrrcuduletiwd Aes ariurlumaed 1 duflsiusnstuanelsun whanau iiudanavews shavilznasautensiniemnan win Fowrivosutdianfinsiuandlanuau Faria (Reckitt&Colman Lid.) unzrnauaniiéta nglnus nfctarnnonian nin euros savin mafia riewhwhenfauvanerinaifiusha esate salastunnnefilaisinvanse9fu (unstimulated saliva) isn 2 finddins vaasinuusiaengasslédusendioulin puincnieviin dole Laid duau 10 Aafia leonbrwrton AnnusineeeMinrsoussimusmenantiqudowta Tnoviorarsdlasuseg ihenudrnsslinnusiavas shendauuin anmavianiansneahnuavant? 30 Iwi nitsintaaherie sevhnrafuhmoduieaivtuta adons 2 fafiiaa flaw 1 writ so wii 1 dla une 3 Hil baerhemannereslanebiiidzemuonms danbfotiaulan mensraausdouuntitemeienlpians shrhoraddoemmasounrtarn 1 151,000 waz 1:10,000 udarhnnwnedouuntiieun ar mnduaonsatonviieuta (blood agar plate; Merck) fqamga a7°C luginisidaaga (WTB binder Laboratorytechnik GmbH, Germany) hun 2a alsa shwiuuunfideviviqhianeteaniven yma 10 12100 unser mifuatawumuerineaawie (brain heart agar42. J, Dent. Assoc. Thai. Vol. 53 No. 1 January-February 2003 mead drutsensusendentnahnanovendite 0. Table 1 Ingradionts of ehorhoxicine mouthwash 0.12%, special mouthwash (choroxyleno 0.004%) and placebos corresponding Ingredients of mouthwash Chlorhexidine 0.12% ‘Special mouthwash 1. Chahine gluconate 2% (vb) one a 2. Glycerine WM) = 80% ee = ee 3.NaF ww a 004% - - : 4, Menthol wy 07% S.EthylAlconol95% (uy) SOUR nanan 6.Biliant bive (wi) 04% 7. Dettol@ a) 7 : 8 Saccharine Sodium (on - : 0.05% fi ama, saa) ae a0d% Bo - 614 er * Stelized water was sed instead of chlorhexidine gluconate in chlorhexidine placebo. ~ Setiized water was used instead of Datel in special mouthwash placebo. mranail 2 mannsexmifainie wmnensbuuntdotaoniniittunatnvnd Table 2 The blocemal and physiol! properties o oa acter species used in tis study wae ae 9 ralbacteal species Gramstan.————_‘Nopholgy Caaasetest ———_—APLajtom (Goer ‘Steptococes spp. + cocci : API Step 20 ‘Stephyoccccus spp. + oe + AP Staph Poptosteptococcus sop. + cess ° A208 ‘Acinemyces spp. + branching, rod ° P2908 Mierococcus spe. + oe + API208 Eubactorum spp. + v8 ° -PI208 Bitdobacterum spp. + vod ° P20 Lactobacius sp. + 108 ° API20A Neisseria sop Silococi ° Dichter sop. + vod ° APLConne Bacteroides sop. : vod ° AP L204 Veionea sop coc ° AP L204aiun, Tiss salu ae-nn 2546 13 mits Sours sosnginw Table 3 Number, age and gender of examinees in each study group Group Sample (no.) Mole Female. =Total Min Mox Mean Cheexne "1 18 25 6 By 2189 ‘Chlorhexidine placebo 10 6 28 8 Ey 2173 Specialmoutwesh 1S 2% ig a er ‘Special mouthwash placebo 10 =e 25 18 BAD Total - “1 a 102 ee hn mila rinrodouuniiterivigtxamaeheontiswuacltoorh Table 4 Type of bacteria found in aerobic and anaerabie constions in the eal camty ‘Anaerobic condition Aerobic condition Gram-positive Gram-positive «& Steptococcis sp «- Sreplococes sop 8) ~Steptococeus sop. 8 - Streptococcus sop ‘1 Streptococcus spp. 1+ Septocoeeus sop. Staphylococcus sop. Staphylococeus sop. Mirococcus sp. Peptosteptoooeus sp. Actinomyces spp. Marococus sop. Evbacerum sp. Biiscbacterum spp. Lactobacils 9p. Unidenttied gram postive bail Gram-negative Gram-negative Neisseria sop Bacteroides opp. Diphterid sep. Veiloneta spp, Unidentified gram negatwve baci Unidentified oram negatve baci14 J, Dent. Assoc. Thal. Vol. 53 No. 1 January-February 2008, niawunlnlos Sina nea Table 5 Tho efict of special or chlorhexidine mouthwash on the numbers of bactralcoloy-fonming units i cultures of salva at various times post ‘exposure. The numbers of colony-forming uni in placebo and dug teaments are expressed as tractions of pre-exposure counts. Special mouthwash Chlorhexidine mouthwash TypemTime Pvaue : Praue P value ot Fraction of pre-exposure counts of Drug Fraction ofpre-exposure counts of rug Special mouthwash 8 ‘8 1s ug Placebo placebo Drug Placebo placebo Chlorhexidine mouthwash ‘erotic 1 min 0.49 o27 0.488 028 103 0.080 0.408 (0154.55) (009087) (008-076 (039823) omin 085 068 0.984 034 144 0076 0.428 (0202.17) 0212.17) (01-105) (0484.50) thr 059 070 089 026 208 oom 0227 (018187) (022222) (008-81) (067-650) 3hr 1.64 090 0475 042 232 0.100 0.100 (051-520) (028-288) (013130) (0.74726) ‘Anaerobic 4 min 128 1.18 ost 0.06 ose 0.002" 0.0008" (044-373) (0413.44) (002-017) (o22.7) 30min os 102 0548 013 169 0.001" 0.035" (022-186) (035-296) (005-06 (059-478) thr 256 133 0.395 016 ose oot 0.000" (086-745) (046387) (006-048) (032262) Shr 200 1.00 0364 030 198 oor" oor (010-085) (a6os87) (0.34291) * Statistical significant diference (P<0.05) (0.69-5.59)16 J. Dent. Assoc. Thai. Vol. 53 No. 1 January-February 2003, shentauanfifont’ sedavandouuniteludonhnld atinion 2 dilxe iduiy lsifowmataten sdovvin daslihion uuafidemoslifavienhenntawuin venient endrothady niaiadiaenrimsinwtumurivansnal Ainnfonaesiesonda Wtihentawdantoumsinyams Wannaanfianes 10 finder uum 30 Turi uaciia Snwnldhiial elisnedndinhentowdananeiendan 1.08 inn aiédthearlomanauwinesosaatolieaiinm Urendaviga louiouivuiviinrnday (Amare shontaahn adnlaonncrivnunnomand wines seouedund Dynaénsis 2545) unag shentauahnenoianiau 0.12% fiseanualuns nnvtouunriiutivigluaniefeantienuncloantiona nivhentawananiiua shovfsudansulealait Usvansnowlunrsandauvaniseniaiglaannaed aonfiswuaclioantiaw Wernaovannaunumslihen dhuhnrsaientay 0.122 uazeaadontéshentauin aaoianday 0.12% dindumsifanhnriownslinsinny muoviunnsratonanavfansevwrondouuanideluianin envauRa owidonded aumamiuayuningatie wninenio aanavuniund Usetifynorinias 2643 ameqive sosounre_cuindinsndejevind uvix uacuthmbritdhe unison Thenenunavivnnssn anietanunnomand ta matntenbentanhn tanansdvwaa 4.Briner WW, Kayrouz GA, Chanak MX, Gamble P. Com- parative antimicrobial effectiveness of @ substantive (0.12% chlorhexidine) and a nonsubstantive (phenolic) mouthrinse in vivo and in vitro. Compendium 41994;15:1160, 1162 2. Buckner RY, Kayrouz GA, Briner W, Gamble P. Reduction of oral microbes by a single chlorhexidine rinse. Com- pendium 1994:15: 512, 514, 516. 3.Logothetis DD, Martinez-Welles JM. Reducing bacterial ‘aerosol contamination with a chlorhexi dine gluconate prevrinse. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1634-39. 4.Yates R, Moran J, Addy M, Mullan PJ, Wade WG and Newcombe R. The Comparative effect of acidified so- dium chlorite and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on plaque regrowth and salivary bacterial counts. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24(9Pt1):603-9. 5.Walton JG, Thompson JW, Seymour RA. Textbook of dental pharmacology and therapeutics. 2“ ed, New York: Oxford Medical Publications; 1996.p. 108-10, 147-49, 6.Johnson BT. Use of chlorhexidine in dentisty. Gen Dent 1995 ; March - April 43: 126-32, 194-40. 7.Kay UW. Drugs in dentistry. Bristol: John Wright & Son Ltd, Reprinted; 1975 8.Jarvinen H, Pionihakkinen K, Huovinen P, Tenovuo J Susceptibility of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococ- ‘cus sobrinus to antimicrobial agents after short-term oral chlorhexidine treatments, Eur J Oral Sci 1995;103: 92-36. 9. Eldridge KR, et al. Eicacy of an alcohol-free chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an antimicrobial agent. J Prosthet Dent 11996;80:685-90. 10. Stanley A, Wilson M and Newman HN. The in vitro effects of chlorhexidine on subgingival plaque bacteria. J Clin Periodontol 1980;18:259-64. 11.268 nintid.cndashdumoinanssa. ngs Trofianfudoqmnaonanlanvinerda; 2541. wh 27-8. 12.Dejapratoomwan P, Kanjanabutara T. Antiseptic mouthwashes and the inhibition of acid producing by Streptococcus mutans. CU Dent J 16:42. 18.Block SS. Disinfection, sterlizaton and preservation. 4 ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger ; 1991,p.204-24, 274-89. 14.Cawson RA, Spector RG, Skelly AM. Basic pharmacol- ‘ogy and clinical drug use in dentistry. 6*ed. New Yorkaa, sai wr-nn 2548 17 Churchill Livingstone;1995.p.109,173,177, 183-4 16.Miller CH, Palenik CJ. Infection control and management of hazardous materials for the dental team, 1° ed. St Louis : Mosby ; 1994 16.Eleaszer PD, Schuster GS, Weathers DR. A chemical treatment regimen to reduce bacterial contamination in dental wateriines. JADA 1997;128:617-23, 17.Nittayananta W, Jealae $,Winn T. Oral Candida in HIV- infected heterosexual persons and intravenous drug users in Thailand. J Oral Patho! Med 2001;30:347-54.18 J, Dent. Assoc, Thal. Vol. 53 No. 1 January-February 2008, inal Article Comparison of chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.12% and special mouthwash (chloroxylenol 0.004%) : Efficiency in reducing saliva bacterial count ‘Kanokpom Pangsomboon’, Duangom Kerdpon’, Rawee Teanpaisan’, Alan Geater* Abstract The current study aims to investigate the efficiency in reducing the saliva bacterial counts after rinsing a special mouth- wash (chloroxylenol 0.004%) when compared with chlothexidine mouthwash 0.12% 104 dental students were divided into 4 ‘groups for rinsing with 4 kinds of mouthwash; chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.12%, chlorhexidine placebo, special mouthwash, and special mouthwash placebo. A 2 ml unstimulated saliva sample was collected: before and at 1,30, 60, and 180 minutes after rinsing with each mouthwash. The saliva samples were then cultured in aerobic and anaerobic conditions and processed for differentiation and total bacterial counts. Chlorhexidine 0.12% mouthwash was found to be more efficient than special mouth- wash in reducing saliva bacterial counts at every sample time point. The efticiency in reducing saliva bacterial count of special mouthwash is similar to rinsing with the special mouthwash placebo. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthwash 0,12% before under- going dental procedures can reduce anaerobic bacteria, and it can last for up to 3 hours. This experiment shows that special mouthwash cannot replace chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.12% in rinsing before undergoing dental procedures. Key words : chlorhexidine; chloroxylenol; mouth rinse; mouth wash; saliva bacterial count; special moutwash “Fay of Deis Pie of Sangh Unveaty Hae, Sangha 0472 “Facil of mecene Pines of Sorgla Unversity Hata, Senglha 9OH12