Clinical trial for evaluation of Ricinus communis and sodium hypochlorite as denture cleanser

• Autor(a) principal: BADARÓ, Maurício Malheiros
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: SALLES, Marcela Moreira, LEITE, Vanessa Maria Fagundes, ARRUDA, Carolina Noronha Ferraz de, OLIVEIRA, Viviane de Cássia, NASCIMENTO, Cássio do, SOUZA, Raphael Freitas de, PARANHOS, Helena de Freitas de Oliveira, SILVA-LOVATO, Cláudia Helena
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Journal of applied oral science (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/jaos/article/view/134191
• topic: Denture; Biofilms; Candidiasis; Disinfection

The development of opportunistic infections due to poor denture hygiene conditions justified the search for effective hygiene protocols for controlling denture biofilm. Objective This study evaluated Ricinus communis and sodium hypochlorite solutions in terms of biofilm removal ability, remission of candidiasis, antimicrobial activity, and participant satisfaction. Material and Methods It was conducted a controlled clinical trial, randomized, double-blind, and crossover. Sixty-four denture wearers with (n=24) and without candidiasis (n=40) were instructed to brush (3 times/day) and immerse their dentures (20 min/day) in different storage solutions (S1 / S2: 0.25% / 0.5% sodium hypochlorite; S3: 10% R. communis; S4: Saline).The trial period for each solution was seven days and a washout period of seven days was used before starting the use of another solution. The variables were analyzed at baseline and after each trial period. The biofilm of inner surfaces of maxillary dentures was disclosed, photographed, and total and dyed areas were measured (Image Tool software). The percentage of biofilm was calculated. Remission of candidiasis was assessed by visual scale and score were attributed. Antimicrobial activity was assessed by the DNA-Checkerboard hybridization method. Patient satisfaction was measured using a questionnaire. Results S1 (4.41±7.98%) and S2 (2.93±5.23%) were more effective then S3 (6.95±10.93%) in biofilm remotion(P