{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045701006971340045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.034856700232378, 'mean_word_length': 4.593073593073593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of the substantivity in saliva of different forms of application of chlorhexidine.

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the in vivo antimicrobial activity of different forms of application of chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX).


METHOD AND MATERIALS
A group of 10 volunteers performed mouth rinsings with a 0.2% and 0.12% solution of CHX and applied CHX in the form of a 0.2% gel, a 0.2% and a 0.12% spray and a swab impregnated with a 0.2% solution. Samples of saliva were taken at baseline; 30 seconds; and 1, 3, 5, and 7 hours after each application. An epifluorescence microscopy technique (BacLight Live/Dead stain) was used to evaluate bacterial vitality.


RESULTS
Bacterial vitality under basal conditions was 92%. At 30 seconds after CHX application, the lowest levels of viable bacteria were detected with the 0.2% and 0.12% solutions (1% and 8%, respectively). After 3 hours, the percentage of live bacteria achieved with the gel and sprays was similar to the basal figures (80% to 91%). At 7 hours, bacterial vitality recovered basal percentages, except with the 0.2% solution (77%).


CONCLUSION
The 0.2% solution of CHX had the greatest sustained antimicrobial effect on the salivary flora, confirming the influence of the concentration and form of application on CHX substantivity.