Toothbrush decontamination agents and methods
A systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35699/2178-1990.2022.32674Keywords:
Methods, Disinfection, Decontamination, Tooth brushingAbstract
Aim: To carry out a systematic review of articles found in the literature in order to evaluate the main agents and methods for decontaminating toothbrushes against viruses, bacteria, and fungi.
Methods: A search was performed in LILACS® (Scientific and Technical Literature of Latin America and the Caribbean/VHL – Virtual Health Library), MEDLINE® (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online /PubMed)®, and EMBASE® databases (Elsevier), in August 2020. As inclusion criteria, articles published between 2010 and 2020, in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, studies of randomized controlled clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials, and in vitro studies were selected, which evaluated different agents and methods for decontaminating toothbrushes.
Results: A total of 2,523 articles were retrieved, with a total of 6 in vivo and 4 in vitro articles deemed to be eligible for the study. The most studied and effective decontamination agent was 0.12% chlorhexidine (in immersion or spray form), followed by 1% and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (immersion), 50% white vinegar (immersion), solution of cetylpyridinium chloride (dip or spray), microwave, and dishwasher.
Conclusion: Considering the quality evidence found, 0.12% chlorhexidine is the most studied and effective agent, followed by 1% sodium hypochlorite and cetylpyridinium chloride, used in spray or immersion form; these are effective, easily accessible solutions that can be used by the population to decontaminate toothbrushes.
Downloads
References
Gonçalo CS, Mialhe FL. Contamination of toothbrushes: a critical review of the literature. R Periodontia. 2009;19(3):56-63.
Chibinski ACR, Grando K, Fanchin PT, Campagnoli E, Santos FA, Wambier DS. Descontaminação de escovas dentais utilizadas por crianças portadoras de necessidades especiais: análise microbiológica. RSBO. 2011;8(2):145-52.
Beneduce C, Baxter KA, Bowman J, Haines M, Andreana S. Germicidal activity of antimicrobials and VIOlight® Personal Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2010;38(8):621-5.
Thamke MV, Beldar A, Thakkar P, Murkute S, Ranmare V, Hudwekar A. Comparison of bacterial contamination and antibacterial efficacy in bristles of charcoal toothbrushes versus noncharcoal toothbrushes: a microbiological study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):463-7.
Soares PV, Fonseca L, Brandão CF, Juiz PJL. Avaliação da contaminação de escovas dentais por microrganismos e da efetividade de antissépticos na sua descontaminação. Rev Bras Pesqui Saúde. 2010;12(3):5-10.
Celepkolu T, Toptanci IR, Erten Bucaktepe PG, Sen V, Dogan MS, Kars V, et al. A microbiological assessment of the oral hygiene of 24-72-month-old kindergarten children and disinfection of their toothbrushes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14(94).
Peng X, Xu X, Li Y, Cheng L, Zhou X, Ren B. Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. Int J Oral Sci. 2020;12(9).
Randazzo W, Falcó I, Aznar R, Sánchez G. Effect of green tea extract on enteric viruses and its application as natural sanitizer. Food Microbiol. 2017;66:150-6.
Swathy Anand PJ, Athira S, Chandramohan S, Ranjith K, Raj VV, Manjula VD. Comparison of efficacy of herbal disinfectants with chlorhexidine mouthwash on decontamination of toothbrushes: an experimental trial. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016;6(1):22-7.
Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7).
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
Basman A, Peker I, Akca G, Alkurt MT, Sarikir C, Celik I. Evaluation of toothbrush disinfection via different methods. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30(1).
Nelson-Filho P, Pereira MSS, De Rossi A, Silva RAB, Mesquita KSF, Queiroz AM, et al. Children’s toothbrush contamination in day-care centers: how to solve this problem? Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(8):1969-74.
Nascimento C, Trinca NN, Pita MS, Pedrazzi V. Genomic identification and quantification of microbial species adhering to toothbrush bristles after disinfection: a cross-over study. Arch Oral Biol. 2015;60(7):1039-47.
Nascimento C, Sorgini MB, Pita MS, Fernandes FHCN, Calefi PL, Watanabe E, et al. Effectiveness of three antimicrobial mouthrinses on the disinfection of toothbrushes stored in closed containers: a randomized clinical investigation by DNA Checkerboard and Culture. Gerodontology. 2014;31(3):227-36.
Freire PLL, Campos PH, Carvalho FG, Rodrigues JA, Diniz MB. Is pomegranate peels infusion effective for disinfection of toothbrushes? Rev Odontol UNESP. 2016;45(5):253-7.
Bélanger-Giguère K, Giguère S, Bélanger M. Disinfection of toothbrushes contaminated with Streptococcus mutans. Am J Dent. 2011;24(3):155-8.
Neves ETB, Monteiro ELT, Silva DR, Perazzo MF, Lima ZN, Cavalcanti AL. Análise in vitro da desinfecção de escovas dentais por substâncias com potencial antimicrobiano. Arch Health Invest. 2018;7(10):415-9.
Busato CA, Cavazzola AS, Ortega AOL, Guaré RO, Saleh Neto A. Utilização do hipoclorito de sódio na descontaminação de escovas dentais: estudo in vitro. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2015;44(6):335-9.
Nelson-Filho P, Silva LAB, Silva RAB, Silva LL, Ferreira PDF, Ito IY. Efficacy of microwaves and chlorhexidine on the disinfection of pacifiers and toothbrushes: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent. 2011;33(1):10-3.
Queiroz FS, Nóbrega CBC, Costa LED, Reul MA, Abreu RSA, Leite MS. Avaliação do perfil de armazenamento e descontaminação das escovas dentais. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2013;42(2):89-93.
American Dental Association. Basic brushing pamphlet. Chicago; 1984.
