Germicidal activity of antimicrobials and VIOlight W Personal Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer: An in vitro study C. Beneduce a, *, K.A. Baxter b , J. Bowman b , M. Haines b , S. Andreana a a Department of Restorative Dentistry, University at Buffalo, School of Dental Medicine, 235 Squire Hall, Buffalo, NY 14214, United States b Hill Top Research, PO Box 138, 6088 Main Street, Miamiville, OH 45147, United States 1. Introduction The oral cavity hosts over 700 different bacterial species and represents an ideal habitat for the bacteria to grow and proliferate; this scenario increases the likelihood for develop- ing periodontal diseases and tooth decay in humans. The toothbrush is still considered the most common and effective over-the-counter device that removes the oral bacterial biofilm and soft debris from the oral cavity, specifically from the surface of the teeth and tongue. However, in performing such activity on daily basis the transfer or ‘‘retention’’ of bacteria on the toothbrush head is expected, therefore resulting in its oral bacterial contamination. In addition to oral microorganisms, other bacteria, fungi and yeast present in the surrounding external environments can also contribute to the bacterial load of toothbrushes. 1,2 Bathrooms, the most common place in the house where toothbrushes are stored, seem to be a common place where fecal-oral spread of pathogenic viruses and bacteria can occur. 3,4 In particular, isolation of enterobacteria from areas surrounding the toilet journal of dentistry 38 (2010) 621–625 article info Article history: Received 30 April 2009 Received in revised form 10 August 2009 Accepted 31 August 2009 Keywords: Toothbrush Germicidal activity Aerobic and anaerobic bacteria Biofilm abstract Objectives: The study evaluated the antibacterial effect of VIOlight 1 (VL) Personal Travel Toothbrush Sanitizer on biofilms after toothbrush exposure to human saliva compared to Listerine 1 Antiseptic (LA), 3% hydrogen peroxide (3%HP) and water. Methods: Twenty toothbrush heads (n = 5/Gp) were immersed in saliva and to allow for bacterial growth and biofilm formation for 24 h. VL sanitizer and antiseptic(s) were used for 7 min; after treatment, brush heads were rinsed and placed into 10 mL of 2 AOAC Letheen Broth, sonicated and vortexed for 10 s. Tenfold serial dilutions were prepared and plated and incubated aerobically and anaerobically. Log 10 CFU/mL data were compared utilizing ANOVA ( p < 0.05). Results: Results showed 3%HP with significantly lower counts than LA, VL and control for aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. LA had significantly lower counts than VL and control for both types of bacteria and VIOlight 1 had significantly lower counts than the control for aerobic bacteria. 3%HP and LA were most effective in rapidly killing bacteria when compared to VIOlight 1 . Conclusions: Results showed that 3% hydrogen peroxide was most effective in reducing the numbers of both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria present on the toothbrush heads. Under the same test conditions, Listerine 1 Antiseptic was shown to be secondarily effective for the same bacteria while the VIOlight 1 unit was the least effective when compared to the other treatment groups. # 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 716 400 3494; fax: +1 716 829 2440. E-mail address: dental.research@hotmail.com (C. Beneduce). available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden 0300-5712/$ – see front matter # 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.08.011