Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 108
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(14)2022 Jul 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938819

ABSTRACT

Dentists are health care workers with the highest risk of exposure to COVID-19, because the oral cavity is considered to be a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The identification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva, the generation of aerosols, and the proximity to patients during dental procedures are conditions that have led to these health care workers implementing additional disinfection strategies for their protection. Oral antiseptics are widely used chemical substances due to their ability to reduce the number of microorganisms. Although there is still no evidence that they can prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, some preoperative oral antiseptics have been recommended as control measures, by different health institutions worldwide, to reduce the number of microorganisms in aerosols and droplets during dental procedures. Therefore, this review presents the current recommendations for the use of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 and analyzes the different oral antiseptic options used in dentistry.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Aerosols , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 11(1): 1833-1842, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915485

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACTBackground: In vitro studies have shown that several oral antiseptics have virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, mouthwashes have been proposed as an easy to implement strategy to reduce viral transmission. However, there are no data measuring SARS-CoV-2 viability after mouthwashes in vivo. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind, five-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial, SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load (by quantitative PCR) and its infectious capacity (incubating saliva in cell cultures) have been evaluated before and after four different antiseptic mouthwashes and placebo in 54 COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Contrary to in vitro evidence, salivary viral load was not affected by any of the four tested mouthwashes. Viral culture indicated that cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) significantly reduced viral infectivity, but only at 1-hour post-mouthwash. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that some of the mouthwashes currently used to reduce viral infectivity are not efficient in vivo and, furthermore, that this effect is not immediate, generating a false sense of security.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04707742..


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load
4.
J Hosp Infect ; 125: 75-91, 2022 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895195

ABSTRACT

Disinfectants and antiseptics are important weapons to reduce the number of micro-organisms and thus limit the number of infections. Different methods of antimicrobial activity testing, often not standardized, without appropriate controls and not validated, are applied. To address these issues, several European Standards (EN) have been developed, describing the test methods to determine whether chemical disinfectants or antiseptic products have appropriate bactericidal, sporicidal, mycobactericidal or tuberculocidal activity; fungicidal or yeasticidal activity; or virucidal activity. In this narrative review, the 17 ENs concerning evaluation of the above-mentioned antimicrobial activity of preparations dedicated to the medical area are briefly reviewed, together with recent publications on this topic. Suspension and carrier tests have been performed in clean and dirty conditions simulating the medical area. In addition, a wide range of applications of these standards has been presented in the research of biocides for hand antisepsis, surfaces disinfection, including airborne disinfection as well as medical device and medical textile disinfection. The role of normative documents in the investigation of antimicrobial activity of disinfectants and antiseptics to limit infections has been underestimated. This narrative review aims to persuade researchers to conduct antimicrobial activity testing in line with validated ENs and highlights an existing gap in ongoing research. It also aims to raise awareness of the wide range of biocidal activity tests with standardized methods in the medical area. We also pay attention to the recently developed European Pharmacopoeia monography concerning the testing of bactericidal and fungicidal activity of antiseptics classified as medicinal products.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Disinfectants , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Disinfectants/pharmacology , Disinfection/methods , Humans
5.
Food Environ Virol ; 14(2): 105-119, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1877974

ABSTRACT

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant consideration toward innovative strategies for overcoming the viral spread. Nanotechnology will change our lives in several forms as its uses span from electronics to pharmaceutical procedures. The use of nanoparticles provides a possibility to promote new antiviral treatments with a low possibility of increasing drug resistance compared to typical chemical-based antiviral treatments. Since the long-term usage of disinfectants and antiseptics at high concentrations has deleterious impacts on well-being and the environment, this review was intended to discuss the antiviral activity of disinfectants and antiseptics required for their activity against respiratory viruses especially SARS-CoV-2. It could improve the inhibition of viral penetration into cells, solvation of the lipid bilayer envelope, and ROS production, therefore enhancing the effect of disinfectants. However, significant concerns about nanomaterial's hazardous effects on individuals and the environment are increasing as nanotechnology flourishes. In this review, we first discuss the significant and essential types of nanomaterials, especially silver and copper, that could be used as antiviral agents and their viral entry mechanisms into host cells. Further, we consider the toxicity on health, and environmental concerns of nanoparticles. Eventually, we present our outlook on the fate of nanomaterials toward viral diseases.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Disinfectants , Nanostructures , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disinfectants/pharmacology , Disinfection/methods , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(10)2022 05 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855636

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease pandemic has afforded dental professionals an opportunity to reconsider infection control during treatment. We investigated the efficacy of combining extraoral high-volume evacuators (eHVEs) with preprocedural mouth rinsing in reducing aerosol contamination by ultrasonic scalers. A double-masked, two-group, crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted over eight weeks. A total of 10 healthy subjects were divided into two groups; they received 0.5% povidone-iodine (PI), essential oil (EO), or water as preprocedural rinse. Aerosols produced during ultrasonic scaling were collected from the chest area (PC), dentist's mask, dentist's chest area (DC), bracket table, and assistant's area. Bacterial contamination was assessed using colony counting and adenosine triphosphate assays. With the eHVE 10 cm away from the mouth, bacterial contamination by aerosols was negligible. With the eHVE 20 cm away, more dental aerosols containing bacteria were detected at the DC and PC. Mouth rinsing decreased viable bacterial count by 31-38% (PI) and 22-33% (EO), compared with no rinsing. The eHVE prevents bacterial contamination when close to the patient's mouth. Preprocedural mouth rinsing can reduce bacterial contamination where the eHVE is positioned away from the mouth, depending on the procedure. Combining an eHVE with preprocedural mouth rinsing can reduce bacterial contamination in dental offices.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Mouthwashes , Aerosols , Air Microbiology , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , Bacteria , Humans , Mouthwashes/therapeutic use , Ultrasonics
7.
Virus Res ; 316: 198791, 2022 Jul 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815257

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents an unprecedented threat for the human population, necessitating rapid and effective intervention measures. Given the main infection route by airborne transmission, significant attention has been bestowed upon the use of antiseptic mouthrinses as a way to possibly reduce infectious viral titers. However, clinical evaluations are still sparse. Thus, we evaluated a wide variety of antiseptic agents that can be used as mouthrinses for their antiviral effects in vitro and their respective mode of action. One of the most promising antiseptic agents (benzalkoniumchloride, BAC) was used in a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial with subsequent analysis of viral loads by RT-qPCR and virus rescue in cell culture. Mechanistic analysis revealed that treatment with BAC and other antiseptic agents efficiently inactivated SARS-CoV-2 in vitro by primarily disrupting the viral envelope, without affecting viral RNA integrity. However, the clinical application only resulted in a mild reduction of viral loads in the oral cavity. These results indicate that gargling with mouthrinses comprising single antiseptic agents may play a minor role towards a potential reduction of transmission rates and thus, these findings are of utmost importance when considering alternative COVID-19 prevention strategies.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Viral Load
9.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(8)2022 Apr 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1809940

ABSTRACT

Polymer microgels, including those based on interpenetrating networks (IPNs), are currently vastly studied, and their practical applications are a matter of thriving research. In this work, we show the perspective for the use of polyelectrolyte IPN microgels either as scavengers or carriers of antiseptic substances. Here, we report that poly-N-isopropylacrylamide/polyacrylic acid IPN microgels can efficiently absorb the common bactericidal and virucidal compound benzalkonium chloride. The particles can form a stable aqueous colloidal suspension or be used as building blocks for soft free-standing films. Both materials showed antiseptic efficacy on the examples of Bacillus subtilis and S. aureus, which was approximately equal to the commercial antibiotic. Such polymer biocides can be used as liquid disinfectants, stable surface coatings, or parts of biomedical devices and can enhance the versatility of the possible practical applications of polymer microgels.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Microgels , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Benzalkonium Compounds , Polymers , Staphylococcus aureus
10.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 5968, 2022 04 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1784028

ABSTRACT

Skin antiseptics have important implications for public health and medicine. Although conventional antiseptics have considerable antimicrobial activity, skin toxicity and the development of resistance are common problems. Plasma-treated water has sterilization and tissue-regenerative effects. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify whether plasma-activated water (PAW) manufactured by our microwave plasma system can be used as a novel antiseptic solution for skin protection. PAW was produced by dissolving reactive nitrogen oxide gas using microwave plasma in deionized water. The antibacterial effects of PAW against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus cereus, and Salmonella typhimurium and effective concentrations were investigated by a solid agar plate assay. The factors mediating the effects of PAW were evaluated by the addition of reactive species scavengers. Cytotoxicity and cell viability assays were performed to examine the protective effect of PAW on normal skin cells. PAW exhibited excellent sterilization and no toxicity in normal skin cells. Experiments also confirmed the potential of PAW as a sanitizer for SARS-CoV-2. Our findings support the use of PAW as an effective skin disinfectant with good safety in the current situation of a global pandemic.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Disinfectants , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Disinfectants/pharmacology , Escherichia coli , Humans , Microwaves , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Water/pharmacology
11.
Vestn Otorinolaringol ; 87(1): 75-80, 2022.
Article in Russian | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1743054

ABSTRACT

In connection with the pandemic of coronavirus infection, it is urgent to develop measures to prevent the intraoperative spread of coronavirus particles and infection of the operating room staff. OBJECTIVE: Generalization and analysis of available data concerning local antiseptic therapy for the prevention of coronavirus infection during endonasal interventions on the lacrimal tract. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search for literature sources was carried out using MEDLINE search engines and the Russian Science Citation Index for queries with the keywords "COVID-19", "coronavirus infection", "antiseptics", "protocol for otorhinolaryngological operations", "dacryosurgical operations" and similar in various combinations. RESULTS: It has been shown that during endonasal operations on the lacrimal tract, the number of risk factors for infection increases, since these procedures are aerosol-generating, and contact occurs not only with the nasal mucosa, but also with the lacrimal fluid, in which the coronavirus is also replicated. The data on the effectiveness of various antiseptics are summarized, the analysis of the possibility of their use in preoperative preparation for endonasal interventions on the lacrimal tract from the point of view of efficacy and safety is carried out. Information is provided on the proprietary protocol for the use of antiseptics to prevent the spread of coronavirus infection during endonasal dacryocystorhinostomy. It is shown that the preventive use of local disinfectants reduces the number of viral particles on the nasal mucosa, which leads to a decrease in contamination of the surrounding space. Among the available and studied antiseptics, the most suitable is povidone-iodine, which can be used in concentrations up to 1.25% to irrigate the nasal mucosa before surgery with an exposure of 30-60 sec. When performing operations on the lacrimal pathways, it is also advisable to carry out antiseptic treatment of the conjunctival cavity with a 5% solution of povidone-iodine and rinse the lacrimal pathways before the operation with povidone-iodine in a concentration of 0.4%. CONCLUSION: To date, information has been obtained that makes it advisable to use antiseptics before performing endonasal aerosol-generating interventions, in particular endonasal dacryocystorhinostomies and recanalization of the tear ducts.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Dacryocystorhinostomy , Lacrimal Apparatus , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Dacryocystorhinostomy/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Epidemiol Health ; 43: e2021032, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1726410

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in the form of mouthwash and nasal spray as an auxiliary treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Forty hospitalized patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 using a reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction test were evaluated. They were randomly divided into an experimental group (n= 20; gargling with 1.0% H2O2 and nasal wash with 0.5% H2O2) or a control group (n= 20). The solutions were used for 7 days and the patients were monitored every 2 days, for a total of 8 days. At check-ups, patients were asked about their symptoms and possible adverse effects of the solutions. The presence and severity (mild, moderate, or severe) of symptoms were recorded. Data were compared using the Student test and the Fisher exact test (α= 0.05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the length of hospital stay (p= 0.65). The most frequent symptom on day 0 was coughing (72.0% in the experimental group and 76.5% in the control group), which abated over time. There was no significant difference between the groups in the evaluated symptoms. Most (75.0%) of the patients in the experimental group presented a reduction in dyspnea between days 0 and 2. Few patients reported adverse effects from the use of the solutions. CONCLUSIONS: H2O2 as a mouthwash and nasal spray is safe to use. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that H2O2 is effective as an auxiliary treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydrogen Peroxide/administration & dosage , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Brazil , COVID-19/virology , Double-Blind Method , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mouthwashes/administration & dosage , Nasal Sprays , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
14.
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol (Engl Ed) ; 97(2): 77-80, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1693058

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, is transmitted by aerosols or by contact with infected surfaces. The route of entry to the body is through the nasal, oral or conjunctival mucosa. Health workers must use effective protection measures against the entry of the virus into mucous membranes, both physical and antiseptic filters. There is an antiseptic used in Ophthalmology that we believe could have virucidal action against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, formulated based on 0.01% hypochlorous acid. METHODS: An exhaustive search has been carried out in the databases of Pubmed and Web of Science to identify relevant articles on the virucidal activity of hypochlorous acid in different concentrations until October 4, 2020. RESULTS: There is evidence of the virucidal efficacy of 0.01% hypochlorous acid against SARS-CoV-2. According to the different scientific publications reviewed, hypochlorous acid has virucidal efficacy against different viruses, among them, SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: The 0.01% hypochlorous acid could act as an effective antiseptic against SARS-CoV-2, exerting a barrier on the mucosa to prevent COVID-19 infection. It can be used on the eyes, nose and mouth. We consider it necessary to assess its use in the protocol for patient health care in ophthalmology consultations, as well as to recommend its use to the general population to reduce viral load and/or prevent transmission of infection. Additional in vivo studies would be required to confirm its antiseptic action.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Humans , Hypochlorous Acid , SARS-CoV-2
15.
West Afr J Med ; 39(1): 83-89, 2022 Jan 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1679050

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated the role of sputum as a site of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARSCoV-2) transmission. However, there is limited literature on the virucidal efficacy of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study investigated the virucidal efficacy of three oral-antiseptics compared to a placebo-control in the sputum of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. METHODOLOGY: A pilot study of adults with SARS-CoV-2 positive results, as determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of <7 days. The oral antiseptics investigated were: Hexetidine (0.1% w/v); Thymol (0.063% w/v) and H2O2(1.5%) compared to de-mineralized sterile water (Placebo-control). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of negative RT-PCR results at 15-mins, 30-mins, 1-hour, 2-hours and 4-hours After Oral antiseptics Interventions (AOI) compared to the placebo-control. Statistical analysis was done using STATA 15.0 software with p-values of <0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Data from a total of 66 participants that were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive at baseline (0-min) was analysed. At 15-mins AOI, the highest proportion of negativation from sputum samples was observed in the Hexedine group, with 69.2% of the baseline PCR positive cases converting to negative compared to 46.7% in the placebo-control group. In addition, H2O2 demonstrated efficacy at 2-hours AOI compared to placebo-control (62.5% vs 37.5% respectively) and other oral-antiseptics. Across all time-points, the oral-antiseptic groups compared to the placebo-control group, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of sputum samples which converted to a negative status (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings in this study suggest there was no significant difference in the proportion of participants who converted to a negative sputum status across the treatment groups at various time points. Future studies could compare the cycle threshold (ct) viral titre values of sputum samples to determine quantitative differences.


CONTEXTE: Des études ont démontré le rôle des expectorations comme un site de transmission du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère-coronavirus- 2 (SRAS-CoV-2). Cependant, il existe peu de documentation sur l'efficacité virucide des antiseptiques oraux contre le virus du SRASCoV-2. Cette étude a examiné l'efficacité virucide de trois antiseptiques oraux par rapport à un contrôle placebo dans les expectorations de personnes infectées par le SRAS-CoV-2. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une étude pilote menée auprès d'adultes dont les résultats sont positifs pour le SRAS-CoV-2, tels que déterminés par la réaction en chaîne de la polymérase par transcription inverse (RT-PCR) pendant 7 jours. Les antiseptiques oraux étudiés étaient : Hexetidine (0,1% p/v) ; Thymol (0,063% p/v) et H2O2 (1,5%) par rapport à l'eau stérile déminéralisée (Placebo-contrôle). Le principal critère d'évaluation était la proportion de résultats RT-PCR négatifs 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 heure, 2 heures et 4 heures après les interventions antiseptiques orales (AOI) par rapport au contrôle placebo. L'analyse statistique a été réalisée à l'aide du logiciel STATA 15.0, les valeurs p de <0,05 étant considérées comme statistiquement significatives. RÉSULTATS: Les données d'un total de 66 participants qui étaient positifs à la RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 au départ (0 minute) ont été analysées. Au bout de 15 minutes, la plus forte proportion de négativation des échantillons d'expectoration a été observée dans le groupe Hexedine, 69,2 % des cas positifs au départ par PCR devenant négatifs, contre 46,7 % dans le groupe témoin placebo. En outre, l'H2O2 a démontré son efficacité à 2 heures après l'apparition de la maladie par rapport au groupe placebo (62,5 % contre 37,5 % respectivement) et aux autres antiseptiques oraux. Pour tous les points temporels, les groupes d'antiseptiques oraux comparés au groupe placebo n'ont pas présenté de différence statistiquement significative dans la proportion d'échantillons d'expectoration qui sont devenus négatifs (p>0,05). CONCLUSION: Les résultats de cette étude suggèrent qu'il n'y a pas de différence significative dans la proportion de participants qui sont passés à un statut négatif d'expectoration dans les groupes de traitement à différents moments. Les études futures pourraient comparer les valeurs du titre viral au seuil de cycle (ct) des échantillons d'expectoration afin de déterminer les différences quantitatives. MOTS CLÉS: SRAS-CoV-2, antiseptiques oraux, hexétidine, peroxyde d'hydrogène.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Hexetidine , Humans , Hydrogen Peroxide , Mouth , Pilot Projects , SARS-CoV-2 , Thymol
16.
Clin Toxicol (Phila) ; 60(6): 745-749, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671993

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was increased promotion and use of topical antiseptics (especially hand sanitisers) and cleaning products to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This study describes unintentional exposures (oral or ocular) to these substances by children during the first year (2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous year (2019). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of unintentional exposures reported to the Victorian Poisons Information Centre for the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. Substances included topical antiseptics (including hand sanitisers), bleach, multipurpose cleaners, disinfectants and high-percentage ethanol products. We analysed data for two age groups; under 5 years and 5 to 14 years. RESULTS: Oral exposures (ingestion or buccal) to topical antiseptics increased from 435 in 2019 to 882 in 2020 in the under 5 age group, with peak call numbers in 2020 coinciding with peaks in active COVID-19 daily case numbers. Oral exposures in older children (5-14 years) were lower (23 and 77 in 2019 and 2020, respectively). No children had moderate or severe symptoms at the time of the call to the Poisons Centre. Ocular exposures to topical antiseptics more than doubled from 2019 to 2020 (from 20 to 53 among children under 5 years, and 8 to 18 in older children). The majority of children with ocular exposure presented with mild symptoms; one had moderate symptoms. Changes in exposures to disinfectants, bleach and cleaners were smaller and not consistent with peaks in active COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional oral exposures to topical disinfectants (mainly hand sanitiser) by young children increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and were more prevalent during periods of increased COVID-19 cases. While there were no cases of severe harm identified, the high number of exposures suggests that appropriate use and storage of hand sanitisers should be promoted.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Disinfectants , Poisons , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Child, Preschool , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Victoria/epidemiology
18.
Minerva Dent Oral Sci ; 70(5): 206-213, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1576849

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Antiseptic mouthwash is widely recommended to treat various oral diseases as well as to improve oral health. Most of the dental procedures lead to the generation of aerosols. These aerosols have a high potential to transmit disease. Preprocedural oral rinse with antimicrobial agents in the form of mouthwashes reduces the bacterial and viral load many folds. The purpose of this review was to summarize the effectiveness of mouthwash against viruses affecting human beings. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Search engines like PubMed, Google Scholar, and others were used to search the electronic database. Articles were identified in which the effectiveness of antiseptic mouth rinse against the virus was tested. A comprehensive search strategy was designed to select the articles and then independently screened for eligibility. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 9624 articles out of the 13 titles met the eligibility criteria. The selected papers were included in the present manuscript according to their relevance to the topic. Authors searched the most used chemicals as mouthwashes but records of three types of mouthwash tested against various types of viruses i.e. chlorhexidine gluconate, Povidone-iodine and essential oil containing mouthwash (Listerine) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Povidone-iodine mouth rinse is effective in reducing viral load either in-vitro or in-vivo conditions. Chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash and essential oils have shown its effectiveness in a few studies. Insufficient evidence is available to support the claim that oral antiseptics can reduce the risk of developing viral loads in humans or the rate of progression of diseases caused by viruses.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , Viruses , Humans , Mouthwashes , Oral Health , Povidone-Iodine
19.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 24392, 2021 12 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585793

ABSTRACT

Most public health measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic are based on preventing the pathogen spread, and the use of oral antiseptics has been proposed as a strategy to reduce transmission risk. The aim of this manuscript is to test the efficacy of mouthwashes to reduce salivary viral load in vivo. This is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial that tests the effect of four mouthwashes (cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide) in SARS-CoV-2 salivary load measured by qPCR at baseline and 30, 60 and 120 min after the mouthrinse. A fifth group of patients used distilled water mouthrinse as a control. Eighty-four participants were recruited and divided into 12-15 per group. There were no statistically significant changes in salivary viral load after the use of the different mouthwashes. Although oral antiseptics have shown virucidal effects in vitro, our data show that salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients was not affected by the tested treatments. This could reflect that those mouthwashes are not effective in vivo, or that viral particles are not infective but viral RNA is still detected by PCR. Viral infectivity studies after the use of mouthwashes are therefore required. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04707742 ; Identifier: NCT04707742).


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/pharmacology , Mouthwashes/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Saliva/virology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anti-Infective Agents, Local/chemistry , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Child , Child, Preschool , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Mouthwashes/chemistry , Placebo Effect , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Viral Load/drug effects , Young Adult
20.
Microsc Res Tech ; 85(3): 1199-1208, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575218

ABSTRACT

This study compares the effect of different mouthwashes that have been recommended during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on shear bond strength (SBS) of universal adhesive to enamel in regards to self-etch (SE) and etch-and-rinse (ER) modes. Flat enamel surfaces were obtained from 100 sound human maxillary central incisors. They were randomly allocated to five groups according to the different mouthwashes (no mouthwash/control [Ctrl], 0.2% chlorhexidine 1.5% hydrogen peroxide [H2 O2 ], 0.2% povidone-iodine [PVP-I], Listerine [L]), and adhesive application modes (ER and SE) (n = 10). After the application of a universal adhesive (single bond universal), composite resin (Filtek Z250) was bonded by a cylinder-shaped mold (height: 2 mm, diameter: 2.4 mm). They were subjected to SBS test using a universal testing machine (AGS-X, Shimadzu Corp.) (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). The resin-enamel interfaces were observed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The semiquantitative chemical microanalyses were performed with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test (p < .05). In SE mode, Group Ctrl revealed significantly higher SBS than all mouthwash groups (p < .05). In ER mode, Group Ctrl showed significantly higher SBS than H2 O2 and PVP-I groups (p < .05). ER mode caused significantly higher SBS than SE mode in all mouthwash groups (p < .05). The SEM observations highlighted that Group Ctrl had a regular and intact hybrid layer with resin tag formation while the H2 O2 and PVP-I groups exhibited a thin hybrid layer in both modes. EDS analysis indicated that in SE mode, all mouthwash groups presented increased O content compared to Group Ctrl. H2 O2 and PVP-I that were suggested for preprocedural use during the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced the enamel bond strength of the universal adhesive in ER mode.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local , COVID-19 , Dental Bonding , Adhesives , Dentin , Dentin-Bonding Agents/chemistry , Humans , Materials Testing , Mouthwashes , Pandemics , Resin Cements , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL