The Importance of Asepsis in Oral Surgery and Maxillofacial

Oct 13, 2025 by orovajewels.com 24 views

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Gluconate Chlorine Mouthwash Gluconate 0.2% and Povidon Iodine 1% as Asepsis Action in the Department of Oral Surgery and Maxillofacial Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra

Introduction

Asepsis is a crucial aspect of medical and dental practices, aiming to reduce and eliminate microorganisms in a specific area, such as the oral cavity. One of the methods used in asepsis action is rinsing with antiseptic solutions. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of two types of mouthwash, namely 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin and 1% povidone iodine, in controlling the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity.

The Importance of Asepsis in Oral Surgery and Maxillofacial

Asepsis is essential in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures to prevent postoperative infections and ensure patient care results. Effective asepsis can reduce the risk of complications, promote healing, and improve patient outcomes. In this context, the selection of the right antiseptic solution is critical to achieve optimal asepsis.

Research Methodology

This research is a laboratory experimental study conducted at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra, using purposive sampling techniques. There are three groups of subjects involved, each consisting of 12 people. The first group rinsed normally with saline, the second group with 1% povidone iodine, and the third group with gluconate chlorhexidin 0.2%. The rinse time was set for 10 seconds for chlorhexidin and 15 seconds for povidone iodine and normal saline.

After rinsing, the salivary samples of each group were planted in nutrients so that the plate and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. After the incubation period, the number of bacterial colonies was calculated using a Colony Counter to determine the effectiveness of each antiseptic solution.

Research Results

The results showed that there was a significant difference between the number of bacterial colonies in the gargling subjects with the three types of solutions. With a significance value p = 0.0001 (p < 0.05), it can be concluded that 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin has a higher effectiveness in reducing the number of bacteria compared to povidone iodine 1% and normal saline.

Additional Analysis and Explanation

The effectiveness of gluconate chlorhexidin in reducing the number of bacterial colonies can be associated with its antimicrobial properties. Chlorhexidin is an antiseptic that works by damaging the bacterial cell membrane, resulting in cell death. Meanwhile, povidone iodine is also effective, but the mechanism of action is different, namely through the release of iodine, which kills microorganisms by damaging their protein and nucleic acids.

Clinical Implications

The results of this study are very important, especially in the field of oral surgery and maxillofacial. Giving effective mouthwash can reduce the risk of postoperative infection and increase patient care results. Therefore, the use of 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin as a preparation procedure before surgery can be recommended given its higher effectiveness in suppressing bacterial growth.

Conclusion

This research provides valuable new insights for medical personnel, especially in the field of dentistry, about the selection of the right antiseptic solution to increase the success of asepsis. The findings of this study can contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines for asepsis in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations can be made:

0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin can be recommended as a preparation procedure before surgery in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures.
Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term effects of gluconate chlorhexidin on bacterial growth and patient outcomes.
The use of povidone iodine 1% as an antiseptic solution should be re-evaluated, considering its lower effectiveness compared to gluconate chlorhexidin.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, including:

The sample size was relatively small, consisting of 12 people in each group.
The study was conducted in a laboratory setting, which may not reflect real-world clinical scenarios.
The study only investigated the effectiveness of two types of mouthwash, and further studies are needed to investigate other antiseptic solutions.

Future Directions

Future studies should aim to investigate the long-term effects of gluconate chlorhexidin on bacterial growth and patient outcomes. Additionally, further studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of other antiseptic solutions in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Comparison of the Effectiveness of Gluconate Chlorine Mouthwash Gluconate 0.2% and Povidon Iodine 1% as Asepsis Action in the Department of Oral Surgery and Maxillofacial Faculty of Dentistry, University of North Sumatra

Q: What is the purpose of this study?

A: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two types of mouthwash, namely 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin and 1% povidone iodine, in controlling the number of bacterial colonies in the oral cavity.

Q: What is asepsis, and why is it important in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures?

A: Asepsis is an effort to reduce and eliminate all microorganisms in an area, such as the oral cavity. It is essential in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures to prevent postoperative infections and ensure patient care results.

Q: What are the differences between gluconate chlorhexidin and povidone iodine?

A: Gluconate chlorhexidin is an antiseptic that works by damaging the bacterial cell membrane, resulting in cell death. Povidone iodine, on the other hand, works by releasing iodine, which kills microorganisms by damaging their protein and nucleic acids.

Q: What were the results of this study?

A: The results showed that there was a significant difference between the number of bacterial colonies in the gargling subjects with the three types of solutions. With a significance value p = 0.0001 (p < 0.05), it can be concluded that 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin has a higher effectiveness in reducing the number of bacteria compared to povidone iodine 1% and normal saline.

Q: What are the clinical implications of this study?

A: The results of this study are very important, especially in the field of oral surgery and maxillofacial. Giving effective mouthwash can reduce the risk of postoperative infection and increase patient care results. Therefore, the use of 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin as a preparation procedure before surgery can be recommended given its higher effectiveness in suppressing bacterial growth.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: This study has several limitations, including:

The sample size was relatively small, consisting of 12 people in each group.
The study was conducted in a laboratory setting, which may not reflect real-world clinical scenarios.
The study only investigated the effectiveness of two types of mouthwash, and further studies are needed to investigate other antiseptic solutions.

Q: What are the future directions of this study?

A: Future studies should aim to investigate the long-term effects of gluconate chlorhexidin on bacterial growth and patient outcomes. Additionally, further studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of other antiseptic solutions in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures.

Q: What are the recommendations based on the results of this study?

A: Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations can be made:

0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin can be recommended as a preparation procedure before surgery in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures.
Further studies are needed to investigate the long-term effects of gluconate chlorhexidin on bacterial growth and patient outcomes.
The use of povidone iodine 1% as an antiseptic solution should be re-evaluated, considering its lower effectiveness compared to gluconate chlorhexidin.

Q: What are the implications of this study for dental professionals?

A: The results of this study can contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines for asepsis in oral surgery and maxillofacial procedures. Dental professionals should consider the use of 0.2% gluconate chlorhexidin as a preparation procedure before surgery, given its higher effectiveness in suppressing bacterial growth.