SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.71 número7 índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados



Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google


South African Dental Journal

versión On-line ISSN 0375-1562
versión impresa ISSN 0011-8516


ABDALRAHMAN, BM; HOLMES, H; PECK, MT  y  BASSON, NJ. In vitro antimicrobial comparison of three commercially available chlorhexidine-based oral rinses. S. Afr. dent. j. [online]. 2016, vol.71, n.7, pp.303-307. ISSN 0375-1562.

INTRODUCTION: Commercially available chlorhexidine (CHX) formulations differ in their CHX concentrations (0.2% and 0.12%) as well as in various additives including alcohol, antimicrobials such as cetylpyridinium chloride and anti-discolouration chemicals such as ascorbic acid and sodium metabisulphite. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare in vitro the antimicrobial efficacies of three different CHX preparations (Corsodyl®, Curasept® and GUM® Paroex®) using 0.2% and 0.12% CHX concentrations as controls. METHODS: A disk diffusion test was performed using pure cultures of the organisms Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans, and mixed cultures (facultative and strict anaerobes) prepared from oral rinse samples of 14 study participants. The means and standard deviations of the diameters of inhibition zones were calculated. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (p value = 0.0001) was found only in Candida albicans cultures between the mean inhibition zones of the CHX preparation disks. Pure CHX preparations and Corsodyl® showed higher antifungal efficacy than Curasept® and GUM® Paroex. CONCLUSION: Both CHX preparations (0.12% and 0.2%) and the 0.2% CHX preparation containing alcohol (Corsodyl®) have more potent antifungal properties against C. albicans than alcohol-free 0.12% CHX preparations such as Curasept® and GUM® Paroex®

        · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )