DİŞ PROTEZ TEMİZLİK ÜRÜNLERİNİN BAKTERİYOLOJİK AKTİVİTELERİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

ÖZET

Amaç: Diş protezlerinin temizliği ve dezenfeksiyonuna gereken önemin verilmemesi, ağız içi enfeksiyonlarla birlikte endokardit gibi sistemik enfeksiyonlara da yol açabilir. Bu tür enfeksiyonların önlenmesi veya azaltılabilmesi için uygun protez kaide materyalinin seçimi ile birlikte protezlerin temizlenmesi ve dezenfeksiyonunu sağlayabilen etkin bir ürünün belirlenmesi büyük önem taşımaktadır. Araştırma- mızda, halen Türkiye’de diş protezlerinin temizliği ve dezenfeksiyonlarında kullanılan çeşitli ürünlerin antibakteriyel etkinliklerinin araştırılması amaçlanmıştır.

Materyal ve Metod: Araştırmamızda, 3 adet alkalen peroksit grubu efervesan diş protez temizleme tableti (Fittydent (Matilek-Avusturya), Corega tabs (GlaxoSmithKline, İrlanda), Protefix (Queisser pharma, Almanya)) ile 2 adet dezenfektan solüsyonun (Curaprox BDC 105 (haftalık kullanımlı) (Swiss Premium Oral Care, İsveç), Curaprox BDC 100 (Günlük kullanımlı) (Swiss Premium Oral Care, İsveç)); dört tip protez kaide materyali deney örneklerine (Vertex (Vertex-Dental B.V, Hollanda), Rodex (Rodont, İtalya), Meliodent (Kulzer, Almanya), Molloplast-B (Detax, Almanya)) bulaştırılmış Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Pseudomo- nas aeruginosa NCTC 6749 ve Bacillus subtilis var. niger ATCC 9372 bakteri suşlarına karşı etkinlikleri üretici firma tarafından önerilen sürelerde incelenmiştir.

Bulgular: Denenen ürünlerin tamamının S.aureus ATCC 6538 bakteriye karşı; %100 oranında etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. P.aeruginosa NCTC 6749 suşuna karşı ise; Fittydent’in, 30 dakika temas süresinde, Corega tabs ve Protefix tabletlerinin 15’er dakikada, Curaprox BDC 105’in ise, 1. ve 7.gün sonunda da 6 saatlik  temas süresinde aynı etkiyi (%100) gösterdiği belirtilmiştir. Curaprox BDC 100’ün ise, 5 dakika temas süresinde % 93-100 arasında etkinlik sağladığı gözlenmiştir. B.subtilis var. niger ATCC 9372 bakteri sporu üzerinde; Curaprox BDC 105’in 1. ve 7.gündeki solüsyonla- rının %99 oranında etkili olduğu, diğer ürünlerin ise temas süre ve protez maddelerine göre Fittydent’in; %97-98, Corega tabs’ ın ; %91-99, Protefix’in; %68-95, Curaprox BDC 100’ ün; %72-99 gibi değişen oranlarda dezenfeksiyon sağladığı belirlenmiştir.

Sonuç: Farklı tip diş protez kaide maddeleri üzerinde temizlik ve dezenfeksiyon ürünlerinin etkinliklerinin ortamda bulunan bakterilere göre çok değişken olduğu, protez kaide maddesi tipinin ise dezenfeksiyon üzerinde bir etkisinin olmadığı gözlenmiştir. Protezlerin her gün temizlenmesinin ve dezenfeksiyonunun potansiyel patojen bakteriyel kontaminasyonunu önlemek için etkili bir yöntem olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar sözcükler: Diş protezi, temizlik, dezenfeksiyonAN INVESTIGATION OF THE BACTERIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY OF DENTURE CLEANSING PRODUCTS

ABSTRACT

Aim: The unsufficient cleaning and disenfection of the dentures not only lead to intra-oral infections but also to systemic infections such as endocarditis, which might be life threatening. To prevent or reduce such infections, selection of appropriate denture base material and effective denture cleaning or disinfecting preparations are very important. In our study, we aimed to investigate the antibacterial activity of cleansing and disinfectant preparations currently use in Turkey.

Material and Method: In our study, the antibacterial activity of 3 alkaline peroxide type cleaning denture effervescent tablets (Fittydent (Matilek-Austria), Corega tabs (GlaxoSmithKline, Ireland), Protefix (Queisser pharma, Germany) frequently use in our country and 2 disinfectant solutions (Curaprox BDC 105 (weekly use) (Swiss Premium Oral Care, Sweden), Curaprox BDC 100 (daily use) (Swiss Premium Oral Care, Sweden), were tested against four  types of denture base material samples (Vertex (Vertex-Dental B.V, Netherlands), Rodex (Rodont, Italy), Meliodent (Kulzer, Germany), Molloplast-B (Detax, Germany)) contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCTC 6749 and Bacillus subtilis var. niger ATCC 9372 at the contact times advised by the manufacturers. Result: It was determined  that all of the preparations were found to be 100% effective against S.aureus ATCC 6538 strain. Fittydent at 30 minutes, Corega tabs and Protefix  tablets at 15 minutes of each, and Curaprox BDC 105 at 6 hours in the solutions prepared in the 1.st and the end of the 7.th days, were have the same activity(100%) against P.aeruginosa NCTC 6749 strain.Otherwise, Curaprox BDC 100 at 5 minutes contact time was found 93-100 % effective against the same strain. The sporicidal activity of the Curaprox BDC 105 against B.subtilis var. niger ATCC 9372 at 6 hours contact times in the solutions prepared in the 1.st and the end of the 7.th days, were found to be 99%, whereas the activity of the rest of the products were varied depending on the contact time and denture base material and differed between 97-98% of Fittydent ,91-99% of Corega tabs , 68-95% of Protefix, 72-99% of Curaprox BDC 100.

Conclusion: The effect of denture base materials on the cleaning and disinfection were very variable according to the kinds of bacteria present in the test environment and have not shown to be differed depending on the type of denture base material. Daily cleaning or disinfection of the dentures are an effective way to prevent bacterial contamination with potential pathogens 

Key words: Denture, cleaning, disinfection

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diş protezi, temizlik, dezenfeksiyon

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE BACTERIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY OF DENTURE CLEANSING PRODUCTS

Öz

Aim: The unsufficient cleaning and disenfection of the dentures not only lead to intra-oral infections but also to systemic infections such as endocarditis, which might be life threatening. To prevent or reduce such infections, selection of appropriate denture base material and effective denture cleaning or disinfecting preparations are very important. In our study, we aimed to investigate the antibacterial activity of cleansing and disinfectant preparations currently use in Turkey. Material and Method: In our study, the antibacterial activity of 3 alkaline peroxide type cleaning denture effervescent tablets (Fittydent (Matilek-Austria), Corega tabs (GlaxoSmithKline, Ireland), Protefix (Queisser pharma, Germany) frequently use in our country and 2 disinfectant solutions (Curaprox BDC 105 (weekly use) (Swiss Premium Oral Care, Sweden), Curaprox BDC 100 (daily use) (Swiss Premium Oral Care, Sweden), were tested against four types of denture base material samples (Vertex (Vertex-Dental B.V, Netherlands), Rodex (Rodont, Italy), Meliodent (Kulzer, Germany), Molloplast-B (Detax, Germany)) contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538, Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCTC 6749 and Bacillus subtilis var. niger ATCC 9372 at the contact times advised by the manufacturers. Result: It was determined that all of the preparations were found to be 100% effective against S.aureus ATCC 6538 strain. Fittydent at 30 minutes, Corega tabs and Protefix tablets at 15 minutes of each, and Curaprox BDC 105 at 6 hours in the solutions prepared in the 1.st and the end of the 7.th days, were have the same activity(100%) against P.aeruginosa NCTC 6749 strain.Otherwise, Curaprox BDC 100 at 5 minutes contact time was found 93-100 % effective against the same strain. The sporicidal activity of the Curaprox BDC 105 against B.subtilis var. niger ATCC 9372 at 6 hours contact times in the solutions prepared in the 1.st and the end of the 7.th days, were found to be 99%, whereas the activity of the rest of the products were varied depending on the contact time and denture base materialand differed between 97-98% of Fittydent ,91-99% of Corega tabs , 68-95% of Protefix, 72-99% of Curaprox BDC 100. Conclusion: The effect of denture base materials on the cleaning and disinfection were very variable according to the kinds of bacteria present in the test environment and have not shown to be differed depending on the type of denture base material. Daily cleaning or disinfection of the dentures are an effective way to prevent bacterial contamination with potential pathogens

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Denture, cleaning, disinfection

Kaynakça

1. Ausburger RH, Elahi JM. Evaluation of seven proprietary denture cleansers.J.Prosthet Dent 1982;47:356-8.
2. Backenstose WM, Wells JG. Side effects of immersion type cleansers on the metal components of dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1977;37:615-21.
3. Bell JA, Brockmann SL, Feil P,Sackuvich DA. The effectiveness of two disinfectants on denture base acrylic resin with an organic load. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:580-3.
4. Dikbaş İ, Köksal T. Hareketli protezlerin temizlenmesinde ve dezenfeksiyonunda kullanılan maddeler ve yöntemler. Hacettepe Dişhek Fak Derg 2005;29:16-27
5. Akgök V, Güzel KG, Gül K. Protezlerden bakterilerin izolasyonu ve bu bakterilere çeşitli dezenfektan maddelerin etkisi. Diş Hek Derg 1993- 1994;17:242-8.
6. Assery M, Sugrue C, Graser GN, Eisenberg AD. Control commercially available cleaning solutions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:275-7. with
7. Akpınar Y.Z, Uzun İ.H, Yılmaz B, Tatar N, Protetik Tedavilerde Çapraz Enfeksiyon Kontrolü, Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2013;supp 7:142-9.
8. Drake D, Wells J, Ettinger R. Efficacy of denture cleansing agents in an in vitro bacteria-yeast colonization model. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:214- 20.

9. Nakamoto K, Tamamoto M, Hamada T. Evaluation of denture cleansers with and without enzymes against candida albicans.J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:792-5.
10. Akşit KS, Ünalan F, Gürler B, Nakipoğlu Y, Beyli MS. Pomza tozundan kaynaklanan çapraz bulaşmanın önlenmesi üzerine mikrodalga enerjisi vew dezenfektan solüsyonların etkisi. İ Ü Diş Hek Fak Derg 1994; 28:237.
11. Akşit K.S, Ünalan F, Gürler B, Beka H, Dikbaş İ. Akrilik protez kaide maddeleri ve Molloplast-B’nin dezenfeksiyonunda kullanılan çeşitli yöntemlerin değerlendirilmesi, Ankem Derg 1995;9(1): 79-84.
12. Budtz-Jorgensen E. Materials and methods for cleaning dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42:619- 63.
13. Lambert JP, Koldstad R. Effect of benzoic acid- detergent germicide on dentine-borne Candida albicans. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:699-700.
14. Gwinnett AJ, Caputo L. The effectiveness of ultrasonic denture cleaning: A scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50: 20.
15. Dills SS, Olshan AM, Goldner S, Brogdon C. Comparison of the antimicrobial capability of an abrasive paste and chemical-soak denture cleaners. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:467-70.
16. Moore TC, Smith DE, Kenny GE. Sanitization of dentures by several denture hygiene methods.J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:158-63.
17. Rohrer MD, Bulard RA.: Microwave sterilization. JADA 1985;110:194.
18. Neill DJ. A study of materials and methods employed in cleaning dentures.Br Dent J 1968; 124: 107-15.
19. Chan EC, Iugovaz I, Siboo R, et al. Comparison of two popular methods for removal and killing of bacteria from dentures. J Can Dent Assoc 1991; 57:937-9.
20. Paranhos HF, Silva-Lovato CH, de Souza RF, et al. Effect of three methods for cleaning dentures on biofilms formed in vitro on acrylic resin.J Prosthodont 2009;18:427-31.
21. Pavarina AC, Pizzolitto AC, Machado AL, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET. An infection control protocol .Effectiveness of immersion solutions to reduce the microbial growth ondental prostheses .J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:532-6.
22. Taylor VE, Jordan MF.Denture corrosion. Report of a case. Br Dent J 1967;2:399.
23. Tarbet WJ, Axelrod S, Minkoff S, Fratarcangelo PA. Denture cleansing:a comparison of two methods. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:322-5.
24. Gornitsky M, Paradisl I, Landaverde G, Malo AM, Velly AM. A clinical and microbiological evaluation of denture cleansers for geriatric patients in long- term care institutions.J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68:39-45.
25. Da Silva FC, Kimpara ET, Mancini MN, Balducci I, Jorge AO, Koga-Ito CY. Effectiveness of six different disinfectants on removing five microbial species and effects on the topographic characteristics of acrylic resin. J.Prosthodont 2008 Dec 17:627-33.
26. Rudd RW, Senia ES, McCleskey FK, Adams ED Jr. Sterilization of complete dentures with sodium hypochlorite. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:318-21.
27. Yılmaz H, Aydın C, Bal BT, Özçelik B. Effects of disinfectants on resilient denture-lining materials contaminated streptococcus sobrinus, and Candida albicans. Quintessence Int 2005;36:373-81. aureus,
28. Türk Standardları Enstitüsü (TSE), TS EN 14561: Çhemical disinfectants and antiseptics - quantitative carrier test for the evaluation of bactericidal activity for ınstruments used ın the medical area (2006).
29. Türk Standardları Enstitüsü (TSE), TS 6776 European disinfectants and antiseptics - Basic sporicidal activity - Test method and requirements (phase 1)(2005). EN 14347 Chemical
30. De Freitas Fernandes FS, Pereira-Cenci T, Da Silva WJ, Filho AP, Straioto FG, Del Bel Cury AA. Efficacy of denture cleansers on candida spp.biofilm formed on polyamide and polymethyl methacrylate resins. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105 51-8.
31. Glass RT, Bullard JW, Conrad RS, Blewett EL. Evaluation of the sanitization effectiveness of a denture-cleaning contaminated with known microbial flora. An in vitro study. Quintessence Int 2004;35: 194-9.
32. Ünlü A, Altay OT, Şahmalı S. The role of denture cleansers on the whitening of acrylic resins. J Int Prosthodont 1996;9:266-70.