A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Effects of Chlorhexidine, Warm Saline Mouth Washes and Microbial Growth on Intraoral Sutures
Introduction Post operative care of sutured wound is important after surgery. Sutured wounds within the oral cavity are kept clean through frequent rinses with either normal saline, chlorhexidine mouth rinses, hydrogen peroxide diluted with saline, or fresh tap water. Patients and Methods The patien...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery 2015-06, Vol.14 (2), p.448-453 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 453 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 448 |
container_title | Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Fomete, B. Saheeb, B. D. Obiadazie, A. C. |
description | Introduction
Post operative care of sutured wound is important after surgery. Sutured wounds within the oral cavity are kept clean through frequent rinses with either normal saline, chlorhexidine mouth rinses, hydrogen peroxide diluted with saline, or fresh tap water.
Patients and Methods
The patients were randomised into 3 groups (A, B and C). The container used had 34 chlorhexidine, 34 warm saline and 32 warm water mouth rinses. The latter served as control. All selected patients had scaling and polishing done preoperatively when needed. All participants in each group did not receive antibiotics but received analgesics (paracetamol 1 g 8 h for 5 days,).
Results
There were 49 females and 51 males, in the age range between 18 and 50 years. Microorganisms were found to grow on sutures with streptococcus viridians predominating followed by staphylococcus epidermides. The effects of chlorhexidine, warm saline and warm tap water mouth washes were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
Chlorhexidine, warm salt water and warm tap water averagely produced the same number of colony forming units of bacteria, which shows that the three different mouth washes are equally effective as post-operative mouth rinses after oral surgery. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12663-014-0666-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1685747330</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1685747330</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-eb81306ca3f13d296ad0fd4cd3a10440083752c91cf1d86812dd32b9776163b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9OHSEUh0lTU431Adw0JG666LQcYGBYmpvrn0RTE23qjjDAdDBzhyvM2PYBfO9ye21NTGQDHL7zAfkhdAjkMxAiv2SgQrCKAK-IEKIib9AeUZJXitPbt3_XtGqoVLvoIOc7UgYDphi8Q7tUENo0ku6hx2N8lWJeezuFB48XQxiDNQNePphhNlOII44dnnqPl11XoLzZLvohpt7_Ci6M_hP-btIKX5vS6vFlnKe-VHLvMzajw5fBptiGojxN8Wc5K8bzcUomplK7nqc5-fwe7XRmyP7gad5H306WN4uz6uLr6fni-KKyHOqp8m0DjAhrWAfMUSWMI53j1jEDhHNCGiZrahXYDlwjGqDOMdoqKQUI1iq2jz5uvesU72efJ70K2fphMKOPc9YgmlpyyRgp6NEL9C7OaSyv01SBkqzmNS0UbKnyyZyT7_Q6hZVJvzUQvYlJb2PSJSa9iUlvzB-ezHO78u5_x79QCkC3QC5H4w-fnq9-3foHO_ycjw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2919735452</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Effects of Chlorhexidine, Warm Saline Mouth Washes and Microbial Growth on Intraoral Sutures</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><creator>Fomete, B. ; Saheeb, B. D. ; Obiadazie, A. C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fomete, B. ; Saheeb, B. D. ; Obiadazie, A. C.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
Post operative care of sutured wound is important after surgery. Sutured wounds within the oral cavity are kept clean through frequent rinses with either normal saline, chlorhexidine mouth rinses, hydrogen peroxide diluted with saline, or fresh tap water.
Patients and Methods
The patients were randomised into 3 groups (A, B and C). The container used had 34 chlorhexidine, 34 warm saline and 32 warm water mouth rinses. The latter served as control. All selected patients had scaling and polishing done preoperatively when needed. All participants in each group did not receive antibiotics but received analgesics (paracetamol 1 g 8 h for 5 days,).
Results
There were 49 females and 51 males, in the age range between 18 and 50 years. Microorganisms were found to grow on sutures with streptococcus viridians predominating followed by staphylococcus epidermides. The effects of chlorhexidine, warm saline and warm tap water mouth washes were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
Chlorhexidine, warm salt water and warm tap water averagely produced the same number of colony forming units of bacteria, which shows that the three different mouth washes are equally effective as post-operative mouth rinses after oral surgery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0972-8279</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0974-942X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12663-014-0666-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26028872</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New Delhi: Springer India</publisher><subject>Age ; Bacteria ; Comparative Study ; Data analysis ; Dentistry ; Drinking water ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Mouth ; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ; Otorhinolaryngology ; Plastic Surgery ; Saline water ; Salt ; Statistical analysis ; Surgery ; Sutures ; Variance analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2015-06, Vol.14 (2), p.448-453</ispartof><rights>The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2014</rights><rights>The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2014.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-eb81306ca3f13d296ad0fd4cd3a10440083752c91cf1d86812dd32b9776163b93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-eb81306ca3f13d296ad0fd4cd3a10440083752c91cf1d86812dd32b9776163b93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12663-014-0666-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2919735452?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21367,27901,27902,33721,33722,41464,42533,43781,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26028872$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fomete, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saheeb, B. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obiadazie, A. C.</creatorcontrib><title>A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Effects of Chlorhexidine, Warm Saline Mouth Washes and Microbial Growth on Intraoral Sutures</title><title>Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery</title><addtitle>J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg</addtitle><addtitle>J Maxillofac Oral Surg</addtitle><description>Introduction
Post operative care of sutured wound is important after surgery. Sutured wounds within the oral cavity are kept clean through frequent rinses with either normal saline, chlorhexidine mouth rinses, hydrogen peroxide diluted with saline, or fresh tap water.
Patients and Methods
The patients were randomised into 3 groups (A, B and C). The container used had 34 chlorhexidine, 34 warm saline and 32 warm water mouth rinses. The latter served as control. All selected patients had scaling and polishing done preoperatively when needed. All participants in each group did not receive antibiotics but received analgesics (paracetamol 1 g 8 h for 5 days,).
Results
There were 49 females and 51 males, in the age range between 18 and 50 years. Microorganisms were found to grow on sutures with streptococcus viridians predominating followed by staphylococcus epidermides. The effects of chlorhexidine, warm saline and warm tap water mouth washes were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
Chlorhexidine, warm salt water and warm tap water averagely produced the same number of colony forming units of bacteria, which shows that the three different mouth washes are equally effective as post-operative mouth rinses after oral surgery.</description><subject>Age</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Comparative Study</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Drinking water</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Mouth</subject><subject>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology</subject><subject>Plastic Surgery</subject><subject>Saline water</subject><subject>Salt</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><issn>0972-8279</issn><issn>0974-942X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9OHSEUh0lTU431Adw0JG666LQcYGBYmpvrn0RTE23qjjDAdDBzhyvM2PYBfO9ye21NTGQDHL7zAfkhdAjkMxAiv2SgQrCKAK-IEKIib9AeUZJXitPbt3_XtGqoVLvoIOc7UgYDphi8Q7tUENo0ku6hx2N8lWJeezuFB48XQxiDNQNePphhNlOII44dnnqPl11XoLzZLvohpt7_Ci6M_hP-btIKX5vS6vFlnKe-VHLvMzajw5fBptiGojxN8Wc5K8bzcUomplK7nqc5-fwe7XRmyP7gad5H306WN4uz6uLr6fni-KKyHOqp8m0DjAhrWAfMUSWMI53j1jEDhHNCGiZrahXYDlwjGqDOMdoqKQUI1iq2jz5uvesU72efJ70K2fphMKOPc9YgmlpyyRgp6NEL9C7OaSyv01SBkqzmNS0UbKnyyZyT7_Q6hZVJvzUQvYlJb2PSJSa9iUlvzB-ezHO78u5_x79QCkC3QC5H4w-fnq9-3foHO_ycjw</recordid><startdate>20150601</startdate><enddate>20150601</enddate><creator>Fomete, B.</creator><creator>Saheeb, B. D.</creator><creator>Obiadazie, A. C.</creator><general>Springer India</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150601</creationdate><title>A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Effects of Chlorhexidine, Warm Saline Mouth Washes and Microbial Growth on Intraoral Sutures</title><author>Fomete, B. ; Saheeb, B. D. ; Obiadazie, A. C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-eb81306ca3f13d296ad0fd4cd3a10440083752c91cf1d86812dd32b9776163b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Age</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Comparative Study</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Drinking water</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Mouth</topic><topic>Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology</topic><topic>Plastic Surgery</topic><topic>Saline water</topic><topic>Salt</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fomete, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saheeb, B. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obiadazie, A. C.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fomete, B.</au><au>Saheeb, B. D.</au><au>Obiadazie, A. C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Effects of Chlorhexidine, Warm Saline Mouth Washes and Microbial Growth on Intraoral Sutures</atitle><jtitle>Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery</jtitle><stitle>J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg</stitle><addtitle>J Maxillofac Oral Surg</addtitle><date>2015-06-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>448</spage><epage>453</epage><pages>448-453</pages><issn>0972-8279</issn><eissn>0974-942X</eissn><abstract>Introduction
Post operative care of sutured wound is important after surgery. Sutured wounds within the oral cavity are kept clean through frequent rinses with either normal saline, chlorhexidine mouth rinses, hydrogen peroxide diluted with saline, or fresh tap water.
Patients and Methods
The patients were randomised into 3 groups (A, B and C). The container used had 34 chlorhexidine, 34 warm saline and 32 warm water mouth rinses. The latter served as control. All selected patients had scaling and polishing done preoperatively when needed. All participants in each group did not receive antibiotics but received analgesics (paracetamol 1 g 8 h for 5 days,).
Results
There were 49 females and 51 males, in the age range between 18 and 50 years. Microorganisms were found to grow on sutures with streptococcus viridians predominating followed by staphylococcus epidermides. The effects of chlorhexidine, warm saline and warm tap water mouth washes were not statistically significant.
Conclusion
Chlorhexidine, warm salt water and warm tap water averagely produced the same number of colony forming units of bacteria, which shows that the three different mouth washes are equally effective as post-operative mouth rinses after oral surgery.</abstract><cop>New Delhi</cop><pub>Springer India</pub><pmid>26028872</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12663-014-0666-0</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0972-8279 |
ispartof | Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery, 2015-06, Vol.14 (2), p.448-453 |
issn | 0972-8279 0974-942X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1685747330 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings; ProQuest Central |
subjects | Age Bacteria Comparative Study Data analysis Dentistry Drinking water Medicine Medicine & Public Health Mouth Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Otorhinolaryngology Plastic Surgery Saline water Salt Statistical analysis Surgery Sutures Variance analysis |
title | A Prospective Clinical Evaluation of the Effects of Chlorhexidine, Warm Saline Mouth Washes and Microbial Growth on Intraoral Sutures |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T16%3A13%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Prospective%20Clinical%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Effects%20of%20Chlorhexidine,%20Warm%20Saline%20Mouth%20Washes%20and%20Microbial%20Growth%20on%20Intraoral%20Sutures&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20maxillofacial%20and%20oral%20surgery&rft.au=Fomete,%20B.&rft.date=2015-06-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=448&rft.epage=453&rft.pages=448-453&rft.issn=0972-8279&rft.eissn=0974-942X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12663-014-0666-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1685747330%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2919735452&rft_id=info:pmid/26028872&rfr_iscdi=true |