Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine and 10% Betadine for perioral skin disinfection prior to oral surgical procedures: a clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a possible postoperative complication. Preoperative application of antiseptics on the surgical site can decrease the rate of SSIs.

Aim

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 10% Betadine (povidone-iodine) for perioral skin disinfection prior to oral surgical procedures.

Methods

This clinical trial (IRCT20181017041365N1) (registration date: 2019/05/04) evaluated 57 male patients who were randomly selected among those presenting to the Periodontology Department of Ahvaz Jundishapur University. Baseline microbial samples were collected from the perioral skin at the right and left sides of the face in each patient by sterile swabs. Next, the perioral area was disinfected with 10% Betadine in the right side and 0.2% CHX in the left side. Secondary microbial samples were then collected. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks and Mann–Whitney test were used to compare the colony counts. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Data were analyzed with the Stata program, version15.1.

Results

The bacterial colony count was 3147 (314,700) in the Betadine and 3139 (313,900) in the CHX group at baseline (P = 0.86). These values changed to 1196 (119,600) in the Betadine (P < 0.001) and 857 (85,700) in the CHX (P < 0.001) group after disinfection. A significant difference was found in colony count between the CHX and Betadine groups after intervention (P = 0.0001).

Conclusion

According to the results, 0.2% CHX has higher antimicrobial efficacy than 10% Betadine for perioral disinfection prior to oral surgical procedures.

Trial registration

IRCT20181017041365N1. Registered on 2019/05/04.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

References

  1. De Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V et al (2009) Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 37(5):387–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ayoub F, Quirke M, Conroy R, Hill A (2015) Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for pre-operative skin preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg Open 1:41–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM et al (2010) Chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone–iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 362(1):18–26

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee I, Agarwal RK, Lee BY et al (2010) Systematic review and cost analysis comparing use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31(12):1219–1229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hemani ML, Lepor H (2009) Skin preparation for the prevention of surgical site infection: which agent is best? Nat Rev Urol 11(4):190

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang D, Wang X-C, Yang Z-X et al (2017) RETRACTED: Preoperative chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine antisepsis for preventing surgical site infection: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 44:176–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cabral CT, Fernandes MH (2007) In vitro comparison of chlorhexidine and povidone–iodine on the long-term proliferation and functional activity of human alveolar bone cells. Clin Oral Investig 11(2):155–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gilbert P, Moore L (2005) Cationic antiseptics: diversity of action under a common epithet. J Appl Microbiol 99(4):703–715

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sidhwa F, Itani KM (2015) Skin preparation before surgery: options and evidence. Surg Infect 16(1):14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rotter M (2001) Arguments for alcoholic hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 48:S4–S8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schwartz DM, Hurst GC, Kirk AM et al (2012) Reactive skin decontamination lotion (RSDL) for the decontamination of chemical warfare agent (CWA) dermal exposure. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 13(10):1971–1979

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. World Health Organization (2018) Global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2nd ed. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/277399

  13. Chaiyakunapruk N, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S (2002) Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter–site care: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 136(11):792-801

  14. Barenfanger J, Drake C, Lawhorn J, Verhulst SJ (2004) Comparison of chlorhexidine and tincture of iodine for skin antisepsis in preparation for blood sample collection. J Clin Microbiol 42(5):2216–2217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hsieh HF, Chiu HH, Lee FP (2006) Surgical hand scrubs in relation to microbial counts: systematic literature review. J Adv Nurs 55(1):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kenrad B (1990) Toxin effects from chlorhexidine gluconate: case report. Tandlaegebladet 94(12):489–491

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gezer S, Yalvaç HM, Güngör K, Yücesoy İ (2020) Povidone-iodine vs chlorhexidine alcohol for skin preparation in malignant and premalignant gynaecologic diseases: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 244:45–50

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Raja SG, Rochon M, Mullins C et al (2018) Impact of choice of skin preparation solution in cardiac surgery on rate of surgical site infection: a propensity score matched analysis. Am J Infect Control 19(1):16–21

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ghobrial GM, Wang MY, Green BA et al (2018) Preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone-iodine: a prospective analysis of 6959 consecutive spinal surgery patients. J Neurosurg Spine 28(2):209–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Elshamy E, Ali YZ, Khalafallah M, Soliman A (2020) Chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone–iodine for skin preparation before elective cesarean section: a prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 33(2):272–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ritter B, Herlyn PKE, Mittlmeier T, Herlyn A (2020) Preoperative skin antisepsis using chlorhexidine may reduce surgical wound infections in lower limb trauma surgery when compared to povidone-iodine-a prospective randomized trial. Am J Infect Control 48(2):167–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lakhi NA, Tricorico G, Osipova Y, Moretti ML (2019) Vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine prior to cesarean delivery: a randomized comparator-controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1(1):2–9

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roeckner JT, Sanchez-Ramos L, Mitta M et al (2019) Povidone-iodine 1% is the most effective vaginal antiseptic for preventing post-cesarean endometritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 221(3):261 e1-e20

  24. Park H, Han S, Lee E et al (2017) Randomized clinical trial of preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone–iodine. Br J Surg 104(2):e145–e150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Davies B, Patel H (2016) Does chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine preoperative antisepsis reduce surgical site infection in cranial neurosurgery? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 98(6):405–408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen S, Chen JW, Guo B, Xu CC (2020) Preoperative antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine for the prevention of surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg 44(5):1412–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hadiati DR, Hakimi M, Nurdiati DS et al (2018) Skin preparation for preventing infection following caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (10)

  28. Privitera GP, Costa AL, Brusaferro S et al (2017) Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus iodine for the prevention of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control 45(2):180–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by Ahvaz University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Navid Dorestan

  2. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Negin Ostadian, Sadaf Sadat Mahmoudinezhad & Kooshan Moradi

  3. Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Ahmad Farajzadeh Sheikh

  4. Infectious and Tropical Diseases Research Center, Health Research Institute, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

    Ahmad Farajzadeh Sheikh

Authors
  1. Navid Dorestan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Negin Ostadian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sadaf Sadat Mahmoudinezhad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ahmad Farajzadeh Sheikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kooshan Moradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by ND, NO, SSM, AFS, and KM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SSM, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (IR.AJUMS.REC.1397.264) and registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT20181017041365N1). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dorestan, N., Ostadian, N., Mahmoudinezhad, S. et al. Comparative efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine and 10% Betadine for perioral skin disinfection prior to oral surgical procedures: a clinical trial. Ir J Med Sci 191, 2207–2211 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02850-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02850-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation