Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks

The goal of this study was to compare the effects of magnetized water and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis and plaque prevention in children aged 12-15 years for a period of 21 days. A total of 24 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 years were chosen. A computer-generated random numbe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of contemporary dental practice 2022-01, Vol.23 (1), p.83-88
Hauptverfasser: Nezam, Sumaiya, Singh, Puja, Ojha, Rashmi, Khan, Shabab Ahmed, Kumari, Neha, Kumari, Neelu
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 88
container_issue 1
container_start_page 83
container_title The journal of contemporary dental practice
container_volume 23
creator Nezam, Sumaiya
Singh, Puja
Ojha, Rashmi
Khan, Shabab Ahmed
Kumari, Neha
Kumari, Neelu
description The goal of this study was to compare the effects of magnetized water and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis and plaque prevention in children aged 12-15 years for a period of 21 days. A total of 24 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 years were chosen. A computer-generated random number sequence was used to split the research participants into two groups. Magnetized water was utilized as a mouthrinse in Category 1, while 0.2% chlorhexidine was employed in Category 2. Water purified with reverse osmosis was stored in glass bottles, which were then put near the magnets to create magnetic water. The magnets had 1000 Gauss power. The bottles were put for a period of 24 hours. The youngsters were given 140 mL of mouthrinse. These mouthrinses were to be used at home, they were told. The Gilmore Turesky adaptation of Quigley Hein's plaque index was used to assess the plaque whereas the gingival index recommended by Loe and Sillness was utilized to assess the gingiva. The plaque index and gingival index were analyzed at baseline, 14 days, and 21 days, as well as history and examination for adverse effects such as bitter taste, brownish discoloration, and so on, were recorded. The trial lasted 21 days with a follow-up period of another 21 days. Both magnetic water and chlorhexidine were similarly successful in managing periodontal and gingival infections; however, magnetized water had less side effects, such as a bitter metallic taste and brown stains. Because of its well-accepted flavor, softer nature, and lower frequency of brown stains, magnetized water can be a safer and more acceptable alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwashes, especially in youngsters. The use of chlorhexidine as a mouthrinse in the oral cavity has been linked to side effects. These side effects are mostly localized, such as brownish discoloration of teeth, alterations in taste perception, and erosion of the oral mucosa. As chlorhexidine has such negative side effects, it was necessary to do research, particularly in children, to identify a replacement that is similarly efficient against germs but does not have these side effects. Water treated with a magnetic field (magnetized water) was compared with chlorhexidine in the current study.
doi_str_mv 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3237
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2673355682</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2673355682</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2747-a56fc2eb4a75d0d65c2348bd3dfaa774f1fae19d07573d95b6109e934a06dc7b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUclKBDEQDaK4_4LkInhpzdJJnOMwuIHiRRFPId2pdjJ2J22Sdrv73_a44akK3lLUewjtUXIoCBFHi75YhCF606aCEsLKgjOuVtAmFUwWXFG6-m_fQFspLUYaZ4qsow0upJBS8k30cfJs2sFkFzwODc5zwFOfXefqGCpnWjyts3t2-W2JXpkHD9m9g8V3JkPExlt8kROeha430aXR5MXlOZ7N2xDn8Oqs84DJIdvHzuP7MPiHEXOtjeBxEyLm-A7gMe2gtWb8BHZ_5ja6PT25mZ0Xl9dnF7PpZVEzVarCCNnUDKrSKGGJlaJmvDyuLLeNMUqVDW0M0IklSihuJ6KSlExgwktDpK1VxbfRwbdvH8PTACnrzqUa2tZ4CEPSTCrOhZDHbKTKb-oYREoRGt1H15n4pinRywr0ote_FeivCvSyglG493NjqDqwf7LfzPknr7-Ghg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2673355682</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Nezam, Sumaiya ; Singh, Puja ; Ojha, Rashmi ; Khan, Shabab Ahmed ; Kumari, Neha ; Kumari, Neelu</creator><creatorcontrib>Nezam, Sumaiya ; Singh, Puja ; Ojha, Rashmi ; Khan, Shabab Ahmed ; Kumari, Neha ; Kumari, Neelu</creatorcontrib><description>The goal of this study was to compare the effects of magnetized water and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis and plaque prevention in children aged 12-15 years for a period of 21 days. A total of 24 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 years were chosen. A computer-generated random number sequence was used to split the research participants into two groups. Magnetized water was utilized as a mouthrinse in Category 1, while 0.2% chlorhexidine was employed in Category 2. Water purified with reverse osmosis was stored in glass bottles, which were then put near the magnets to create magnetic water. The magnets had 1000 Gauss power. The bottles were put for a period of 24 hours. The youngsters were given 140 mL of mouthrinse. These mouthrinses were to be used at home, they were told. The Gilmore Turesky adaptation of Quigley Hein's plaque index was used to assess the plaque whereas the gingival index recommended by Loe and Sillness was utilized to assess the gingiva. The plaque index and gingival index were analyzed at baseline, 14 days, and 21 days, as well as history and examination for adverse effects such as bitter taste, brownish discoloration, and so on, were recorded. The trial lasted 21 days with a follow-up period of another 21 days. Both magnetic water and chlorhexidine were similarly successful in managing periodontal and gingival infections; however, magnetized water had less side effects, such as a bitter metallic taste and brown stains. Because of its well-accepted flavor, softer nature, and lower frequency of brown stains, magnetized water can be a safer and more acceptable alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwashes, especially in youngsters. The use of chlorhexidine as a mouthrinse in the oral cavity has been linked to side effects. These side effects are mostly localized, such as brownish discoloration of teeth, alterations in taste perception, and erosion of the oral mucosa. As chlorhexidine has such negative side effects, it was necessary to do research, particularly in children, to identify a replacement that is similarly efficient against germs but does not have these side effects. Water treated with a magnetic field (magnetized water) was compared with chlorhexidine in the current study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-3711</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-3711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3237</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35656663</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>India</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Anti-Infective Agents ; Child ; Chlorhexidine - pharmacology ; Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use ; Dental Plaque - prevention &amp; control ; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions ; Humans ; Mouthwashes - pharmacology ; Mouthwashes - therapeutic use ; Water</subject><ispartof>The journal of contemporary dental practice, 2022-01, Vol.23 (1), p.83-88</ispartof><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2747-a56fc2eb4a75d0d65c2348bd3dfaa774f1fae19d07573d95b6109e934a06dc7b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2747-a56fc2eb4a75d0d65c2348bd3dfaa774f1fae19d07573d95b6109e934a06dc7b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35656663$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nezam, Sumaiya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Puja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ojha, Rashmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Shabab Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumari, Neha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumari, Neelu</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks</title><title>The journal of contemporary dental practice</title><addtitle>J Contemp Dent Pract</addtitle><description>The goal of this study was to compare the effects of magnetized water and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis and plaque prevention in children aged 12-15 years for a period of 21 days. A total of 24 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 years were chosen. A computer-generated random number sequence was used to split the research participants into two groups. Magnetized water was utilized as a mouthrinse in Category 1, while 0.2% chlorhexidine was employed in Category 2. Water purified with reverse osmosis was stored in glass bottles, which were then put near the magnets to create magnetic water. The magnets had 1000 Gauss power. The bottles were put for a period of 24 hours. The youngsters were given 140 mL of mouthrinse. These mouthrinses were to be used at home, they were told. The Gilmore Turesky adaptation of Quigley Hein's plaque index was used to assess the plaque whereas the gingival index recommended by Loe and Sillness was utilized to assess the gingiva. The plaque index and gingival index were analyzed at baseline, 14 days, and 21 days, as well as history and examination for adverse effects such as bitter taste, brownish discoloration, and so on, were recorded. The trial lasted 21 days with a follow-up period of another 21 days. Both magnetic water and chlorhexidine were similarly successful in managing periodontal and gingival infections; however, magnetized water had less side effects, such as a bitter metallic taste and brown stains. Because of its well-accepted flavor, softer nature, and lower frequency of brown stains, magnetized water can be a safer and more acceptable alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwashes, especially in youngsters. The use of chlorhexidine as a mouthrinse in the oral cavity has been linked to side effects. These side effects are mostly localized, such as brownish discoloration of teeth, alterations in taste perception, and erosion of the oral mucosa. As chlorhexidine has such negative side effects, it was necessary to do research, particularly in children, to identify a replacement that is similarly efficient against germs but does not have these side effects. Water treated with a magnetic field (magnetized water) was compared with chlorhexidine in the current study.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Anti-Infective Agents</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine - pharmacology</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Dental Plaque - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mouthwashes - pharmacology</subject><subject>Mouthwashes - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Water</subject><issn>1526-3711</issn><issn>1526-3711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpNUclKBDEQDaK4_4LkInhpzdJJnOMwuIHiRRFPId2pdjJ2J22Sdrv73_a44akK3lLUewjtUXIoCBFHi75YhCF606aCEsLKgjOuVtAmFUwWXFG6-m_fQFspLUYaZ4qsow0upJBS8k30cfJs2sFkFzwODc5zwFOfXefqGCpnWjyts3t2-W2JXpkHD9m9g8V3JkPExlt8kROeha430aXR5MXlOZ7N2xDn8Oqs84DJIdvHzuP7MPiHEXOtjeBxEyLm-A7gMe2gtWb8BHZ_5ja6PT25mZ0Xl9dnF7PpZVEzVarCCNnUDKrSKGGJlaJmvDyuLLeNMUqVDW0M0IklSihuJ6KSlExgwktDpK1VxbfRwbdvH8PTACnrzqUa2tZ4CEPSTCrOhZDHbKTKb-oYREoRGt1H15n4pinRywr0ote_FeivCvSyglG493NjqDqwf7LfzPknr7-Ghg</recordid><startdate>20220101</startdate><enddate>20220101</enddate><creator>Nezam, Sumaiya</creator><creator>Singh, Puja</creator><creator>Ojha, Rashmi</creator><creator>Khan, Shabab Ahmed</creator><creator>Kumari, Neha</creator><creator>Kumari, Neelu</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220101</creationdate><title>Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks</title><author>Nezam, Sumaiya ; Singh, Puja ; Ojha, Rashmi ; Khan, Shabab Ahmed ; Kumari, Neha ; Kumari, Neelu</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2747-a56fc2eb4a75d0d65c2348bd3dfaa774f1fae19d07573d95b6109e934a06dc7b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Anti-Infective Agents</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine - pharmacology</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Dental Plaque - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mouthwashes - pharmacology</topic><topic>Mouthwashes - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Water</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nezam, Sumaiya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singh, Puja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ojha, Rashmi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Shabab Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumari, Neha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumari, Neelu</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of contemporary dental practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nezam, Sumaiya</au><au>Singh, Puja</au><au>Ojha, Rashmi</au><au>Khan, Shabab Ahmed</au><au>Kumari, Neha</au><au>Kumari, Neelu</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks</atitle><jtitle>The journal of contemporary dental practice</jtitle><addtitle>J Contemp Dent Pract</addtitle><date>2022-01-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>83</spage><epage>88</epage><pages>83-88</pages><issn>1526-3711</issn><eissn>1526-3711</eissn><abstract>The goal of this study was to compare the effects of magnetized water and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingivitis and plaque prevention in children aged 12-15 years for a period of 21 days. A total of 24 youngsters between the ages of 12 and 15 years were chosen. A computer-generated random number sequence was used to split the research participants into two groups. Magnetized water was utilized as a mouthrinse in Category 1, while 0.2% chlorhexidine was employed in Category 2. Water purified with reverse osmosis was stored in glass bottles, which were then put near the magnets to create magnetic water. The magnets had 1000 Gauss power. The bottles were put for a period of 24 hours. The youngsters were given 140 mL of mouthrinse. These mouthrinses were to be used at home, they were told. The Gilmore Turesky adaptation of Quigley Hein's plaque index was used to assess the plaque whereas the gingival index recommended by Loe and Sillness was utilized to assess the gingiva. The plaque index and gingival index were analyzed at baseline, 14 days, and 21 days, as well as history and examination for adverse effects such as bitter taste, brownish discoloration, and so on, were recorded. The trial lasted 21 days with a follow-up period of another 21 days. Both magnetic water and chlorhexidine were similarly successful in managing periodontal and gingival infections; however, magnetized water had less side effects, such as a bitter metallic taste and brown stains. Because of its well-accepted flavor, softer nature, and lower frequency of brown stains, magnetized water can be a safer and more acceptable alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwashes, especially in youngsters. The use of chlorhexidine as a mouthrinse in the oral cavity has been linked to side effects. These side effects are mostly localized, such as brownish discoloration of teeth, alterations in taste perception, and erosion of the oral mucosa. As chlorhexidine has such negative side effects, it was necessary to do research, particularly in children, to identify a replacement that is similarly efficient against germs but does not have these side effects. Water treated with a magnetic field (magnetized water) was compared with chlorhexidine in the current study.</abstract><cop>India</cop><pmid>35656663</pmid><doi>10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3237</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1526-3711
ispartof The journal of contemporary dental practice, 2022-01, Vol.23 (1), p.83-88
issn 1526-3711
1526-3711
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2673355682
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Anti-Infective Agents
Child
Chlorhexidine - pharmacology
Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use
Dental Plaque - prevention & control
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Humans
Mouthwashes - pharmacology
Mouthwashes - therapeutic use
Water
title Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Magnetized Water and Its Comparison with Chlorhexidine 0.2% in Young Children for 3 Weeks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T08%3A28%3A46IST&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=Evaluation%20of%20the%20Antimicrobial%20Activity%20of%20Magnetized%20Water%20and%20Its%20Comparison%20with%20Chlorhexidine%200.2%25%20in%20Young%20Children%20for%203%20Weeks&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20contemporary%20dental%20practice&rft.au=Nezam,%20Sumaiya&rft.date=2022-01-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=83&rft.epage=88&rft.pages=83-88&rft.issn=1526-3711&rft.eissn=1526-3711&rft_id=info:doi/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3237&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2673355682%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=2673355682&rft_id=info:pmid/35656663&rfr_iscdi=true