Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic and disinfectant in medical and non-medical environments. Compared to its ubiquitous use, allergic contact dermatitis from chlorhexidine has rarely been reported and so its sensitization rate seems to be low. Chlorhexidine has been used for more than 50 years but it was only in the last two decades, that reports of immediate- type reactions to chlorhexidine were seen. Reactions ranging from localized urticaria to anaphylactic shock and hypersensitivity reactions, including delayed hypersensitivity reactions such as contact dermatitis, fixed drug eruptions, and photosensitivity reactions, began to appear more frequently. However the prevalence of contact urticaria and anaphylaxis due to chlorhexidine remains to be unknown. In this case report we have reported a case of urticaria due to oral use of chlorhexidine. The adverse reaction was confirmed by a skin prick test.

Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic and disinfectant in medical and nonmedical environments. Compared to its ubiquitous use, allergic contact dermatitis from chlorhexidine has rarely been reported and so its sensitization rate seems to be low. The prevalence of contact urticaria and anaphylaxis due to chlorhexidine remains to be unknown. This case report presents a case of urticaria due to oral use of chlorhexidine. The adverse reaction was confirmed by skin prick test.

Chlorhexidine is commonly used in dentistry in various forms. Allergic reactions to chlorhexidine of both immediate and delayed type have been reported. Although the incidence is low there may be severe manifestations in some patients. This report presents a case of allergy to chlorhexidine following topical application.

Objective: Our objective was to determine the efficacy of pre-procedural rinsing with chlorhexidine in reducing bacterial aerosol contamination during use of ultrasonic scaler and comparing the efficacy of water, non-tempered chlorhexidine and tempered chlorhexidine in reducing bacterial count in aerosols when used as a pre-procedural rinse. Materials and Methods: The study was designed to include 30 systemically healthy patients in different age groups. The patients were divided randomly into 3 groups (I, II, III) of 10 patients each to be administered with sterile water, non tempered chlorhexidine and tempered chlorhexidine, respectively, as a pre-procedural rinse. The aerosol produced by the ultrasonic unit was collected at 3° clock, 6° clock and 12° clock positions on blood agar plates within a range of 4 feet in all the three groups. The blood agar plates were incubated for 48 hours and the total number of colony forming units (CFUs) were counted and statistically analyzed. Results: The results showed that CFU in group III and group II were significantly reduced when compared to group I with F=1084.92, P<0.001 (ANOVA). Also, CFU in group III was significantly reduced when compared to group II with P<0.001. Conclusions: Pre-procedural rinse can significantly reduce the viable microbial content of dental aerosols and tempered chlorhexidine was more effective than non-tempered chlorhexidine.

Objective: Infection at the pin tract is a common complication of external fixation. This study was done to compare the rate of pin site infection following combined 1 % silver sulphadiazine and 5 % chlorhexidine dressing with 5% chlorhexidine dressing alone. Method: This was a prospective controlled study which compared the results of pin site dressing using a combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulphadiazine cream (Study group) with dressing using chlorhexidine alone. Eligible patients had external fixation in the treatment of open fractures or orthopaedic conditions. Pintract infection was deemed to be present if erythema, cellulitis or purulent discharge occurred around a pin site. We did not distinguish between deep and superficial infection. Results: The study group had one hundred and seventy pin sites while the control group had one hundred and sixty-four pin sites. Thirty-eight patients, in whom thirty-seven uniplanar external fixators and one Ilizarov ring fixator were used, made up both groups. Three patients (7.9%) had pin tract infection in the study group while nine patients (23.7%) had pin tract infection in the control group. Conclusion: There was a significantly lower prevalence of pin-tract infection amongst patients whose external fixation pins were dressed with 1 % silver sulphadiazine and 5 % chlorhexidine than in those dressed with chlorhexidine alone (P=0.03). Therefore, we advocate the use of a combination of silver sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine for pin site dressing.

Background: This study was done to compare and evaluate the compressive strength, diametral tensile strength, and microleakage of glass ionomer cement and chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement. The glass ionomer cements used in the study were Fuji IX for group I and chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement for group II. Materials and Methods: The strength characteristics (compressive and diametral tensile strengths) and microleakage of both the groups were evaluated after 24 h. Student's "t" test and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis of the difference in strength characteristics and microleakage. Results: There was no statistical difference (P>0.05) in the strength characteristics and microleakage of glass ionomer cement and chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement. Conclusion: The present study suggests that strength characteristics and marginal sealing capability of chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer cement were similar to those of glass ionomer cement (Fuji IX). So, chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer can be considered as a substitute for glass ionomer cements, especially in pediatric dentistry.

The objective of this study was to ascertain the effects of a mouthwash prepared with Triphala on dental plaque, gingival inflammation, and microbial growth and compare it with commercially available Chlorhexidine mouthwash. This study was conducted after ethics committee approval and written consent from guardians (and assent from the children) were obtained. A total of 1431 students in the age group 8-12 years, belonging to classes fourth to seventh, were the subjects for this study. The Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) of the subjects was determined using a questionnaire. The students were divided into three groups namely, Group I (n = 457) using Triphala mouthwash (0.6%), Group II (n = 440) using Chlorhexidine mouthwash (0.1%) (positive control), and Group III (n = 412) using distilled water (negative control). The assessment was carried out on the basis of plaque scores, gingival scores, and the microbiological analysis (Streptococcus and lactobacilli counts). Statistical analysis for plaque and gingival scores was conducted using the paired sample t-test (for intragroup) and the Tukey's test (for intergroup conducted along with analysis of variance test). For the Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus counts, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney test were applied for intragroup and intergroup comparison, respectively. All the tests were carried out using the SPSS software. Both the Group I and Group II showed progressive decrease in plaque scores from baseline to the end of 9 months; however, for Group III increase in plaque scores from the baseline to the end of 9 months was noted. Both Group I and Group II showed similar effect on gingival health. There was inhibitory effect on microbial counts except Lactobacillus where Triphala had shown better results than Chlorhexidine. It was concluded that there was no significant difference between the Triphala and the Chlorhexidine mouthwash.

Complete debridement and disinfection of the root canal system are fundamental requirements for successful endodontic treatment. Despite the morphological challenges of the internal root anatomy, root canal irrigants play an important role in the optimization of the root canal preparation, which is essentially a chemo-mechanical procedure. Enterococcus faecalis is one of the most resistant microorganisms that dominants the microbial ecosystem of persistent periradicular lesions in retreatment cases. For that reason, many in vitro and in vivo studies evaluated and compared the antibacterial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine at varying concentrations using different experimental models against this microorganism. However, many controversies with regard to the ideal irrigant and concentration do in fact exist. Hence, this review aims to discuss the antibacterial activity of these two main root canal irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis using the agar diffusion and direct contact methods and the possible modulating factors responsible for inconsistent findings among different studies. In addition, the disinfection potential of both chemical agents on gutta percha and Resilon cones are also discussed. The source of this review was conducted through an electronic literature search using PubMed database from December 1997 until December 2011, which analyze the related laboratory investigations of both irrigants, published in major endodontic journals.

Aim: To evaluate and compare the antibacterial effects of chlorhexidine and calcium hydroxide on Enterococcus faecalis. Materials and Methods: Root canal treatment involves a number of steps. In spite of all the steps done thoroughly, root canal treatment might fail due to the remnant microbes. Of all such bacteria, E. faecalis is found in failed root canals. The study tests the antibacterial activity of various intracanal medicaments. Agar diffusion test was used to evaluate the antibacterial effects of the following antibacterial agents: i. hexidine:0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate; ii. periogard:0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate; iii. calcium hydroxide powder plus sterile water; iv. metapaste plus sterile water; v. calcium hydroxide plus hexidine; vi. calcium hydroxide plus periogard; vii. metapaste plus hexidine; viii. metapaste plus periogard. The size of zones of inhibition was measured. Results: The average size of zones of inhibition after 72 hours were hexidine: 5 mm; periogard: 4.25 mm; calcium hydroxide plus sterile water: 0.5 mm; metapaste plus sterile water: 0.5 mm; calcium hydroxide plus hexidine: 4.7 mm; calcium hydroxide plus periogard: 4 mm; metapaste plus hexidine: 4.65 mm; metapaste plus periogard: 4 mm. Results were subjected to statistical analysis using one way analysis of variance and Tukey tests. Conclusion: Chlorhexidine and its preparations are more potent antibacterial agents againstE. faecalis in comparison to calcium hydroxide.