ASM Microbe

ASM Microbe

Source:

Karita A, et al. In vitro evaluation of active ingredients in mouthwash for prevention of pneumonia. Presented at: ASM Microbe; June 18-20, 2020 (virtual meeting).

Disclosures: The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.
August 05, 2020
1 min read
Save

Mouthwash ingredients effective against pneumonia pathogens

Source:

Karita A, et al. In vitro evaluation of active ingredients in mouthwash for prevention of pneumonia. Presented at: ASM Microbe; June 18-20, 2020 (virtual meeting).

Disclosures: The authors report no relevant financial disclosures.
You've successfully added to your alerts. You will receive an email when new content is published.

Click Here to Manage Email Alerts

We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com.

Some active ingredients in mouthwash are effective against pneumonia-causing bacteria, according to the results of an in vitro study presented during ASM Microbe, which is being held virtually.

Past research has shown that frequent dental checkups can lower a patient’s risk for pneumonia.

Mouthwash
Source: Adobe Stock

“More effective pneumonia prevention measures [are needed] not only for home care but also for medical and nursing care where labor and time are scarce,” Ayami Karita, of Bunkyo Gakuin University Graduate School in Tokyo, told Healio. “There have been some reports that oral care with the introduction of dental hygienist has reduced the incidence of pneumonia, but I understand that some medical and nursing care situation can't spare much time or money.”

Karita and colleagues analyzed the effectiveness of chlorohexidine gluconate (CHG), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and 1,8-cineole — common active ingredients in mouthwash — against five clinically isolated bacteria strains: MRSA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae. They allowed the three ingredients to react with each bacteria for 10, 20, 30 and 60 seconds, and subsequently counted the number of bacteria. They considered the ingredients effective if a bacterial reduction of more than 5 log10 CFU/mL was observed.

Bacterial survival rates for CPC at 60 seconds were less than 10% for all bacteria except H. influenzae, which had a survival rate of approximately 75%. Survival rates for CHG at 60 seconds were also less than 10% for all bacteria. Survival rates at 60 seconds for 1,8-cineole were approximately 10% for S. pneumoniae, 85% for MRSA, 50% for P. aeruginosa, 65% for K. pneumoniae and 8% for H. influenzae.

Karita noted that one of the study’s major limitations was that it was limited to in vitro data.

“In the future, it will be possible to contribute more important data by examining the number of times a day and the intervals of time is performed in vivo,” Karita said. “In addition, I think it is important to expand the target microorganisms to viruses and fungi.”