Effectiveness of Use of Ultraviolet Sanitizing Devices for Reduction of Bacterial Colonies on Toothbrushes


Burhanuddin Daeng Pasiga


The use of toothbrushes plays an important role in the spread of disease and increased risk of oral infections because toothbrushes can serve as a place for microorganisms, this can occur in healthy individuals, there is oral disease, and or who have systemic disease. The purpose of this research is to know the effectiveness of uses of ultraviolet sanitation equipment on the reduction of bacterial colony on toothbrush. The type of research is laboratory experimental with. Design: Pretest and Posttest Group Design. The sampling method used is purposive sampling. As a sample is student of faculty of dentistry of Hasanuddin University amounted to 11 people. Each selected sample was then given 2 toothbrushes and 2 new tubes of toothpaste for the initial and post-intervention phase. The respondent was instructed to brush twice daily, after breakfast and before bed, and to rinse the toothbrush under running water for 30 seconds after brushing. Subjects are instructed to store their toothbrushes in disposable cups provided for the participants and left to dry. Result: There were found 9 species of bacterial colonies either breeding with Sodium Agar or Mc.Conkey or most enterobacter colony species. The effectiveness of the use of UV tools for germ decontamination was found to have significant differences in the reduction of bacterial counts before and after the use of UV sanitation (p<0.001). Conclusion: The use of sanitary UV for bacterial decontamination of toothbrush can be considered to prevent bacterial contamination on toothbrush surface, as a whole it is found there is a difference of colony average reduction before and after intervention using Ultra violet sanitation.


How to Cite
Daeng Pasiga, B. (2018). Effectiveness of Use of Ultraviolet Sanitizing Devices for Reduction of Bacterial Colonies on Toothbrushes. International Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1676–1683. https://doi.org/10.18311/ijmds/2018/20073


  1. Basman A, Peker I, Akca G, Alkurt MT, Sarikir C, Celik I. Evaluation of toothbrush disinfection via different methods. Brazilian Oral Research. 2016; 30:11–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0006
  2. Peker I, Akca G, Sarikir C, Alkurt MT, Celik I. Effectiveness of alternative methods for toothbrush disinfection : An In Vitro study. The Scientific World Journal. 2014; 2014:1– 10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/726190 PMid:24971388 PMCid:PMC4058182
  3. Artur L, Bataus M, Mello WA De, Carneiro LC. Antibiogram and plasmid profile of isolated enterobacteriaceae in toothbrushes. European Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2014; 2:22–9.
  4. Frazelle MR, Munro CL. Toothbrush contamination : A review of the literature. Nursing Research and Practice. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/420630
  5. Samuel O, Ifeanyi O. Bacterial contamination of used manual toothbrushes obtained from some students of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Nigeria. Univers J Microbiol Res. 2015; 3:56–9. doi:10.13189/ujmr.2015.030404.
  6. Rodrigues LK, Motter CW, Pegoraro DA, Menoli APV, Menolli RA. Microbiological contamination of toothbrushes and identification of a decontamination protocol using chlorhexidine spray. Rev Odonto Cienc. 2012; 27:213– 7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-65232012000300007
  7. Komiyama EY, Back-Brito GN, Balducci I, Koga-Ito CY. Evaluation of alternative methods for the disinfection of toothbrushes. Braz Oral Res. 2010; 3:28–33. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242010000100005
  8. Rao SJ, Rudraiah CB, Haritha N, Satish KG, Venkata RI, Jaya LL, et al. Microbial contamination of tooth brushes stored in different settings before and after disinfection with chlorhexidine– A comparative study. J Young Pharm. 2015; 7:486–92. https://doi.org/10.5530/jyp.2015.4s.11
  9. Nanjundaswamy KV, Madihalli AU. Evaluation of streptococcus mutans contamination of tooth brushes and their decontamination using various disinfectants - An in vitro study. Journal of Advanced Oral Research. 1996; 2.
  10. Samuel O, Ifeanyi O. Bacterial Contamination of Used Manual Toothbrushes Obtained from Some
  11. Students of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Nigeria. Univers J. Microbiol. Res. 2015; 3:56–9. doi:10.13189/ujmr.2015.030404
  12. Naik R, Ahmed Mujib BR, Telagi N, Anil B, Spoorthi B. Contaminated tooth brushes-potential threat to oral and general health. J Fam Med Prim Care 2015; 4:444. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161350
  13. Zautner AE, Hage A, Schneider K, Schlösser K, Zimmermann O. Effects of easy-to-perform procedures to reduce bacterial colonization with streptococcus mutans. Eur J Microbiol Immunol. 2013; 3:204–10. https://doi.org/10.1556/EuJMI.3.2013.3.9
  14. Morris DW, Goldschmidt M, Keene H, Stanley G. Comparison of solid-head versus hollow-head designs. 2014; 88.
  15. Saini R, Kulkarni V. Toothbrush : A favorable media for bacterial growth. IJEDS. 2013; 2:27–8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1035
  16. Tomar P, Ganavadiya R, Hongal S, Jain M, Rana K, Saxena V. Evaluating sanitization of toothbrushes using ultra violet rays and 0.2% chlorhexidine solution: A comparative clinical study. J Basic Clin Pharm. 2015; 6:12. https://doi.org/10.4103/09760105.145769
  17. Contreras A, Arce R, Botero JE, Jaramillo A, Betancourt M. Toothbrush contamination in family members. Rev Clínica Periodoncia, Implantol Y Rehabil Oral. 2010; 3:24–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0718-5391(10)70037-9
  18. Sheikh NS, Rajhans N, Mhaske N, Moolya N, Sudip H. Toothbrush disinfection -A myth or reality? A comparative evaluation of 4% disodium EDTA, 10% sodium perborate in the disinfection of toothbrushes: Clinicomicrobiological study. Int J Med Res Heal Sci. 2014; 3:840. https://doi.org/10.5958/2319-5886.2014.00011.3