日本語View as Markdown

Comparison of the Antimicrobial Effect of Hydrogen Water and Chlorhexidine Mouth rinse in Toothbrush Disinfection Among Dental Students.

歯科学生における歯ブラシ消毒への水素水とクロルヘキシジン洗口液の抗菌効果比較

human randomized controlled trial hydrogen-rich water positive

Abstract

A comparative study enrolled 30 dental students divided into two equal groups: one group soaked toothbrushes in hydrogen-rich water and the other in chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 10 minutes daily over a 7-day period, with brushing performed twice daily. Bristle segments were collected, incubated for 24 hours, and colony-forming units (CFU) were enumerated. Toothbrushes disinfected with hydrogen-rich water showed significantly lower CFU counts compared with those disinfected using chlorhexidine. The findings indicate that hydrogen-rich water possesses superior antimicrobial activity against toothbrush-associated microorganisms relative to the conventional chlorhexidine standard, suggesting its potential utility as a routine toothbrush disinfectant.

Mechanism

The antioxidant properties of hydrogen-rich water are proposed to scavenge reactive oxygen species, thereby inhibiting microbial colonization and reducing colony-forming unit counts on toothbrush bristles.

Bibliographic

Authors
Vaishnavi C, Elangovan GP, Thirumal M, Prashanth SV, Deepika D, Pragathi TG
Journal
J Pharm Bioallied Sci
Year
2025
PMID
40511014
DOI
10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1565_24
PMC
PMC12156531

Tags

Delivery:水素水経口投与 Mechanism:抗酸化酵素 炎症抑制 酸化ストレス 活性酸素種

Delivery context

Hydrogen-rich water is a low-risk delivery route, but the achievable systemic hydrogen dose is bounded. For clinical applications, inhalation is the most efficient route; inhalation, however, carries explosion risk, and concentration matters (empirical LFL of 10% applies to inhalation environments; high-concentration devices are documented in the Consumer Affairs Agency accident database and are not recommended).

Safety notes

Hydrogen-rich water is a low-risk delivery route, but the achievable systemic hydrogen dose is bounded. For clinical applications, inhalation is the most efficient route; inhalation, however, carries explosion risk, and concentration matters (empirical LFL of 10% applies to inhalation environments; high-concentration devices are documented in the Consumer Affairs Agency accident database and are not recommended).

See also:

Cite as: H2 Papers — PMID 40511014. https://h2-papers.org/en/papers/40511014
Source: PubMed PMID 40511014