Comparison of Antimicrobial and Wound Healing Agents on Oral Fibroblast Viability and In-vivo Bacterial Load
- *Corresponding Author:
- Jeremy Bowen
DD, Dental Arts, 19201 East Valley View Parkway
Independence, MO 64055, Missouri, USA
Tel: 816 478 3600
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Received date : April 03, 2015; Accepted date : May 11, 2015; Published date : May 14, 2015
Citation: Bowen DJ, Cole C, McGlennen R (2015) Comparison of Antimicrobial and Wound Healing Agents on Oral Fibroblast Viability and In-vivo Bacterial Load. Dentistry 5:305. doi:10.4172/2161-1122.1000305
Copyright: © 2015 Bowen DJ, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Oral rinses are designed to restore healing (often for mouth sores) or kill oral bacteria. The balance between bactericidal and restorative effects is not often achieved, leading to unwanted side effects of the products. In this study we ran comparisons of currently available cleansing rinses, measuring possible toxic effects on gingival fibroblasts invitro and their bactericidal effects in-vivo. The commercial products tested included oral rinses based on: chlorhexidine gluconate, carbamide peroxide,aloe vera, essential oils (with and without alcohol) and a combination product with essential oils and carbamide peroxide. All products except the combination rinse caused 100% gingival fibroblast cell (HGF-1) death after a single 30 second rinse. In addition, the same products increased the cytotoxic effects of a chemotherapeutic even at its lowest dose. In a pilot human trial, an antimicrobial product (CHX) and the combination product were tested for effectiveness in reducing the bacterial load. Oral bacterial load was measured from sputum samples before and after a single rinse. Control samples were collected before and after a water rinse. Using PCR,bacterial DNA probes designed for 11 different gram-negative bacterium were tested. The combination product had the most reduction in total bacterial load, with statistically significant reduction in Aactinomycetem comitans, T forsythia, F nucleatum, P intermedia, P micros, and C species. The results suggest that antimicrobial rinses can also be harmful to gingival fibroblasts, while only one restorative rinse was not toxic to gingival fibroblasts and still showed antimicrobial effects.