
doi: 10.1111/jicd.12309
pmid: 29243408
AbstractAimThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the genotoxicity of non‐alcoholic mouth rinses on buccal epithelial cells using a micronucleus test.MethodsA total of 105 patients were selected and randomly divided into five groups. Four different mouth rinses and normal saline were given for 2 weeks’ duration, and cytological smears were collected before and after exposure. These smears were subjected to micronucleus (MN) and other nuclear abnormalities (ONA) tests using acridine orange stain, and their frequencies were obtained in 500 buccal epithelial cells. The statistical analysis included mean, χ2‐test, analysis of variance, and post‐hoc analysis by Bonferroni test.ResultsMicronucleated cells (P < .00) and MN (P < .00) were higher in individuals exposed to chlorhexidine (CHX), followed by chlorine dioxide (ClO2), potassium nitrate (KNO3), and sodium fluoride (NaF), amine fluoride (AmF), and normal saline. ONA were greater (P < .00) in individuals exposed to CHX, followed by ClO2, AmF, KNO3, and NaF and normal saline. Overall, the results showed that genotoxic damage was greater in the case of CHX, followed by ClO2, KNO3, and NaF, AmF, and normal saline.ConclusionChronic exposure to mouth rinses can cause genotoxic damage to buccal epithelial cells. Long‐term injudicious and inadvertent use of mouth rinses should be discouraged.
Adult, Male, Micronucleus Tests, Nitrates, Potassium Compounds, Chlorhexidine, Mouth Mucosa, Mouthwashes, India, Epithelial Cells, Oxides, Microscopy, Fluorescence, Anti-Infective Agents, Local, Humans, Sodium Fluoride, Female, Fluorides, Topical, Chlorine Compounds
Adult, Male, Micronucleus Tests, Nitrates, Potassium Compounds, Chlorhexidine, Mouth Mucosa, Mouthwashes, India, Epithelial Cells, Oxides, Microscopy, Fluorescence, Anti-Infective Agents, Local, Humans, Sodium Fluoride, Female, Fluorides, Topical, Chlorine Compounds
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 15 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
