Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Comparison between effectivity of povidone Iodin 1% application with swab technique and rinse to the number of bacteria colonization as an aseptic action in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara

  • Isnandar Isnandar ,
  • Hendry Rusdy ,
  • Indra B. Siregar ,
  • Nur Syamimi ,

Abstract

Objective: To compare between Effectivity of Povidone Iodin 1% Application With Swab Technique and Rinse To the Number of Bacteria Colonization As An Aseptic Action at the department of oral surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara.Material and  Methods: This was an experimental study with post-test only control group design approach. Purposive technique is applied to collect samples which are clinical students. In this study, sample were divided into 4 groups and each consisting of 10 people. The sample was divided into negative control group with 0.9% normal saline and 1% povidone iodine treatment group with two techniques which is swab and gargle.Results: Based on Mann-Whitney test result on 1% Povidone Iodin group which was rinse and  swab technique obtained p-value = 0.382 where p-value > 0,05 so it can be concluded that there is no significant difference between 1 % Povidone Iodine in rinsing technique and 1% Povidone Iodine in swabbing.Conclusion: Rinsing was more effective than swab as an aseptic action with 1% Povidone Iodine.
Section

References

  1. Suleh MM, Wowor VNS, Mintjelungan CN. Prevention
  2. and control of cross infection in the extraction of teeth
  3. in the Dental and Oral Hospital of PSPDG FK UNSRAT.
  4. J e-Gigi(eG) 2015;3: 587-588. (In Indonesia)
  5. Kosutic D, Uglesic V, Perkovic D, et al. Preoperative
  6. antiseptics in clean/contaminated maxillofacial and oral
  7. surgery: prospective randomized study’. Int J Oral &
  8. Maxillofac Surg 2009;38: 160-162.
  9. Mervrayano J, Rahmatini, Bahar E. Comparison of the
  10. effectiveness of mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and
  11. povidone iodine against streptococus mutans. J Kesehatan
  12. Andalas 2015;1: 169. (In Indonesia)
  13. Johnson NR, Kazoulis A, Bobinskas AM. Bacterial
  14. comparison of preoperative rinsing and swabbing for
  15. oral surgery using 0.2% chlorhexidine. J Investig & Clin
  16. Dent 2015;6: 193-194.
  17. Scannapieco FA, Yu J, Raghavendran K. A randomized
  18. trial of chlorhexidine gluconate on oral bacterial
  19. pathogens in mechanically ventilated patients. 2009;13: 4.
  20. Cappucino JG, Welsh C. Microbiology: a laboratory
  21. manual. 11th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited;
  22. p. 20-33.
  23. Patabang WA, Leman MA, Maryono J. The difference in
  24. the growth of the number of oral bacterial colonies before
  25. and after using mouthwash containing chlorhexidine.
  26. J Ilmiah Farmasi 2016;5: 27-28. (In Indonesia)
  27. Marsh PD, Martin MV. Oral microbiology Fifth Edition.
  28. London New York: Elsevier; 2009. p. 8.
  29. Riza A, Siregar IB, Isnandar, et al. Comparison of
  30. effectiveness disinfection of 2% glutaraldehyde and 4.8%
  31. chloroxylenol on tooth extraction instruments in the
  32. Department of Oral Maxillofacial and Surgery, Faculty of
  33. Dentistry, University of North Sumatera. J Dentomaxillofac
  34. Sci 2018;3: 169-171.

How to Cite

Isnandar, I., Rusdy, H., Siregar, I. B., & Syamimi, N. (2020). Comparison between effectivity of povidone Iodin 1% application with swab technique and rinse to the number of bacteria colonization as an aseptic action in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Sumatera Utara. Journal of Dentomaxillofacial Science, 5(2), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.15562/jdmfs.v0i0.848

HTML
315

Total
271

Share

Most read articles by the same author(s)

> >>