In vitro antibacterial activity of an active oxygen mouthwash (blue®m) and 0.12% chlorhexidine against Porphyromonas gingivalis ATCC 33277

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v15i3.50632

Keywords:

Porphyromonas gingivalis, Chlorhexidine, Active oxygen, Mouthwash, Antibacterial activity.

Abstract

Objective: To compare in vitro the antibacterial activity of an active oxygen-based mouthwash (blue®m) and 0.12% chlorhexidine against Porphyromonas gingivalis ATCC 33277 by evaluating the diameter of the inhibition halo at different time intervals. Materials and methods: An in vitro experimental study with a 2×3 factorial design was conducted. The agar diffusion method was applied using supplemented Mueller–Hinton agar, with incubation under anaerobic conditions. Antibacterial activity was assessed at 4, 8, and 12 hours. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey’s post hoc test, adopting a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Both mouthwashes exhibited antibacterial activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis at all evaluated time points. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups at 4 and 8 hours. However, at 12 hours, 0.12% chlorhexidine showed a significantly greater inhibitory effect compared to the active oxygen mouthwash (p = 0.033). Conclusion: The active oxygen-based mouthwash demonstrated antibacterial activity comparable to chlorhexidine during the initial evaluation periods; however, chlorhexidine showed greater persistence of the antimicrobial effect. These findings support the potential use of active oxygen as an adjunctive agent for the initial control of anaerobic periodontal pathogens.

References

Bescos, R., Ashworth, A., Cutler, C., Brookes, Z., Belfield, L., Rodiles, A., & White, D. (2020). Effects of chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbiome. Scientific Reports, 10, 5254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61912-4

Brookes, Z., Teoh, L., Cieplik, F., & Kumar, P. S. (2023). Mouthwash effects on the oral microbiome. International Dental Journal, 73(Suppl. 1), S74–S81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2023.02.007

Brookes, Z. L. S., Belfield, L. A., Ashworth, A., Wright, S., Bell, C., Satterthwaite, J. D., & White, D. A. (2021). Effects of chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbiome. Journal of Dentistry, 113, 103768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103768

Bui, F. Q., Almeida-da-Silva, C. L. C., Huynh, B., Trinh, A., Liu, J., Woodward, J., & Ojcius, D. M. (2019). Association between periodontal pathogens and systemic disease. Biomedical Journal, 42(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2018.12.001

Custódio, C. P., de Freitas, R. M., Marcantonio Junior, E., & colaboradores. (2024). Oxygen-releasing mouthwash for peri-implant health: A clinical perspective. Revista de Odontologia da UNESP, 53, e20240021. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.02124

Deliberador, T. M., Weiss, S. G., Rychuv, F., & colaboradores. (2020). Comparative in vitro analysis of blue®m versus chlorhexidine on Porphyromonas gingivalis. Advances in Microbiology, 10, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2020.103015

Jones, C. G. (1997). Chlorhexidine: Is it still the gold standard? Periodontology 2000, 15, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1997.tb00105.x

Mattei, B. M., Imanishi, S. A. W., Ramos, G. O., & colaboradores. (2021). Mouthwash with active oxygen reduces postoperative inflammation: A case report. Case Reports in Dentistry, 2021, 5535807. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5535807

Ngeow, W. C., Tan, C. C., Goh, Y. C., & colaboradores. (2022). Oxygenation and angiogenesis in oral wound healing. Bioengineering, 9(11), 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9110636

Oosterwaal, P. J. M., Mikx, F. H. M., van’t Hof, M. A., & Renggli, H. H. (1991). Comparison of antimicrobial gels on the clinical and microbiological effects in periodontal pockets. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 18(4), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1991.tb00423.x

Pereira, A. S., et al. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. UFSM.

Risemberg, R. I. C., Wakin, M., & Shitsuka, R. (2026). A importância da metodologia científica no desenvolvimento de artigos científicos. E-Acadêmica, 7(1), e0171675.

Shaheen, M. Y., Abas, I., Basudan, A. M., & colaboradores. (2024). Local oxygen-based therapy (blue®m) for periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Medicina, 60(3), 447. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60030447

Shitsuka, R., et al. (2014). Matemática fundamental para tecnologia. Editora Érica.

Sy, K., Flamme, J., Macquet, H., & colaboradores. (2020). Antimicrobial effect of active oxygen gel on oral pathogens. American Journal of Dentistry, 33(6), 305–309.

Toassi, R. F. C., & Petry, P. C. (2021). Metodologia científica aplicada à área da saúde. Editora da UFRGS.

Vieira, S. (2021). Introdução à bioestatística. Guanabara Koogan.

Zimmer, S., Kolbe, C., Kaiser, G., Krage, T., Ommerborn, M., & Barthel, C. R. (2006). Clinical efficacy of flossing versus antimicrobial rinses. Journal of Periodontology, 77(8), 1380–1385. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2006.050362

Downloads

Published

2026-03-13

Issue

Section

Health Sciences

How to Cite

In vitro antibacterial activity of an active oxygen mouthwash (blue®m) and 0.12% chlorhexidine against Porphyromonas gingivalis ATCC 33277. Research, Society and Development, [S. l.], v. 15, n. 3, p. e4115350632, 2026. DOI: 10.33448/rsd-v15i3.50632. Disponível em: https://rsdjournal.org/rsd/article/view/50632. Acesso em: 24 mar. 2026.