The effectiveness of these two antiseptic materials in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity is still unclear

Oct 13, 2025 by windailys.com 146 views

Effectiveness of the Administration of Chlorhexidine Mouthwash is 0.12% and 1% Povidon Iodine Against Bacterial Colonies as an Asepsis Action in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra

Introduction

Asepsis is a crucial step in preventing the entry of microorganisms into the human body, which can potentially cause infection. In the field of dentistry, asepsis is an essential step before medical treatment to ensure the cleanliness and safety of patients. One common method of asepsis is rinsing with antiseptic materials. Chlorhexidine digluukonate 0.12% and povidon iodine 1% are two antiseptic materials that are often used for gargling. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these two antiseptic materials on the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity, especially in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra.

Background

The use of antiseptic materials in dentistry is a common practice to prevent infection and maintain cleanliness. Chlorhexidine digluukonate 0.12% and povidon iodine 1% are two antiseptic materials that are widely used for gargling. Chlorhexidine is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent that is effective against a wide range of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Povidon iodine, on the other hand, is a disinfectant that is effective against bacteria, viruses, and fungi. The effectiveness of these two antiseptic materials in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity is still unclear.

Methodology

This study was conducted with a laboratory experimental design and involved students who had dental and oral health as respondents. The research sample was divided into three groups, each consisting of 12 people. The first group used chlorhexidine 0.12%, the second group used povidon iodine 1%, and the third group as a control group used normal saline 0.9%. Each respondent was asked to rinse for 30 seconds, and the results were then collected in a sterile tube to be analyzed in the microbiology laboratory, in order to calculate the number of existing bacterial colonies.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was carried out using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney statistical methods to determine significant differences between the groups being tested. The results of the analysis showed that there was a significant difference between groups that rinse with chlorhexidids of 0.12% and groups that rinse with 1% povidon iodine. Chlorhexidous digluukonate 0.12% shows a reduction in bacterial colonies that are larger than povidon iodine 1% (p-value <0.05).

Results

The results of this study showed that chlorhexidine 0.12% was more effective in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity compared to povidon iodine 1%. This finding is important to consider in clinical practice as one step in maintaining cleanliness and preventing infection in patients who will undergo oral surgery. In addition, the results of this study can be a reference for medical personnel in choosing the most suitable antiseptic material for use in procedures related to oral and dental health.

Discussion

The selection of appropriate antiseptic can contribute significantly in the practice of dentistry, especially in the context of asepsis. The success of asepsis actions not only depends on the techniques used, but also on the effectiveness of the selected antiseptic agents. Chlorhexidine 0.12% was found to be more effective in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity compared to povidon iodine 1%. This finding is important to consider in clinical practice as one step in maintaining cleanliness and preventing infection in patients who will undergo oral surgery.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study shows that the selection of appropriate antiseptic can contribute significantly in the practice of dentistry, especially in the context of asepsis. The success of asepsis actions not only depends on the techniques used, but also on the effectiveness of the selected antiseptic agents. Chlorhexidine 0.12% was found to be more effective in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity compared to povidon iodine 1%. This finding is important to consider in clinical practice as one step in maintaining cleanliness and preventing infection in patients who will undergo oral surgery.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, it is recommended that chlorhexidine 0.12% be used as the antiseptic material of choice for gargling in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra. This recommendation is based on the finding that chlorhexidine 0.12% was more effective in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity compared to povidon iodine 1%.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine Mouthwash 0.12% and Povidon Iodine 1% Against Bacterial Colonies

Q: What is the purpose of this study?

A: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.12% and povidon iodine 1% against bacterial colonies in the oral cavity, especially in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra.

Q: What are the antiseptic materials used in this study?

A: The antiseptic materials used in this study are chlorhexidine digluukonate 0.12% and povidon iodine 1%.

Q: How were the participants selected for this study?

A: The participants were selected from students who had dental and oral health as respondents. The research sample was divided into three groups, each consisting of 12 people.

Q: What was the procedure for the participants in this study?

A: Each participant was asked to rinse for 30 seconds with either chlorhexidine 0.12%, povidon iodine 1%, or normal saline 0.9% (control group). The results were then collected in a sterile tube to be analyzed in the microbiology laboratory.

Q: What were the results of this study?

A: The results of this study showed that chlorhexidine 0.12% was more effective in reducing the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity compared to povidon iodine 1%.

Q: What are the implications of this study?

A: The findings of this study have important implications for clinical practice, as they suggest that chlorhexidine 0.12% may be a more effective antiseptic material for gargling in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The limitations of this study include the small sample size and the use of a laboratory experimental design.

Q: What are the future directions for this research?

A: Future directions for this research may include conducting larger-scale studies to confirm the findings of this study and exploring the use of other antiseptic materials in the oral cavity.

Q: What are the potential applications of this research?

A: The potential applications of this research include the development of more effective antiseptic materials for use in the oral cavity and the improvement of asepsis practices in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra.

Q: What are the potential risks associated with this research?

A: The potential risks associated with this research include the use of antiseptic materials that may cause adverse reactions in some individuals.

Q: How can the findings of this study be applied in clinical practice?

A: The findings of this study can be applied in clinical practice by using chlorhexidine 0.12% as the antiseptic material of choice for gargling in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra.

Q: What are the potential benefits of this research?

A: The potential benefits of this research include the development of more effective antiseptic materials for use in the oral cavity and the improvement of asepsis practices in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra.