Comparison of bacterial contamination and antibacterial efficacy in bristles of charcoal toothbrushes versus noncharcoal toothbrushes: A microbiological study

Background: Charcoal toothbrushes have been marketed widely claiming lesser bacterial contamination owing to the presence of activated charcoal. Aim and Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bacterial contamination and antimicrobial efficacy of charcoal bristles compared to noncharcoal bristles in used toothbrushes. Materials and Methods: A total of 50 patients met inclusion criteria which were given standard brushing instructions on the use of a charcoal toothbrush and were asked to return the used brushes after 1 week of usage. After a washout period of 1-week, the participants were then provided with noncharcoal toothbrush and given similar brushing instructions to both groups and were instructed to return the brush after another week of usage. Bristles of the used toothbrushes were sectioned and placed in a 5 ml of saline, and 0.1 ml was inoculated on blood agar plates, which were then placed in a gas pack jar for anaerobic culture. Colony forming units (CFU) were measured after 48 h of incubation. To evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of charcoal bristles, the zone of inhibition was evaluated for charcoal versus noncharcoal after 24 h of incubation. Data collected were analyzed using a paired sample t-test. Results: The mean CFU count for noncharcoal bristles was almost double that of charcoal bristles. About 10 mm of the zone of inhibition was found around charcoal bristles as compared to 3 mm for noncharcoal bristles. Conclusion: This study shows the statistically significant difference in bacterial counts between bristle types and lower CFUs in the charcoal bristles compared with noncharcoal bristles, after 1 week of use. The zone of inhibition that was found around charcoal tooth bristles supported the antimicrobial properties of the charcoal toothbrush

Comparative evaluation of two suturing models for preclinical training

Introduction: Demonstration and training on the live subject are not always an optimal means of introducing students to suturing technique. The use of live patient as a test subject is not acceptable with today's ethical standard. It would be advantageous to use a preclinical training model that impersonates real-life conditions, through which manual dexterity and a high degree of psychomotor skill can be achieved. This helps to master the suturing technique under semi-realistic circumstances at an affordable cost. The model most closely resembling the actual condition should be considered. Materials and Methods: A total of 54 postgraduate students participated in the study. The material required for both the models were distributed among participants and asked to prepare the models. Then, suturing was performed on models, and the questionnaires were given for feedback. Model 1: Require orange peel, alginate impression material, and dental stone. Model 2: Require mackintosh, sponge, alginate impression material, and glass slab. Depending on the questionnaire, response results were calculated. Results: All participants experienced that glass slab model was more durable than the orange model. Thirty-six participants experienced that orange model is easy to prepare compared to glass slab model. There was a significant linear trend among the ordered categories seen using Chi-square test. Conclusion: According to the participant's preference orange model was better in all aspects such as ease of preparation, the passage of suture needle, and the time required for suturing compared to glass slab model which was more durable and less gaping experienced with it. Hence, we concluded that orange model was better for preclinical suturing training