Explore the vast range of titles available.

A comprehensive skincare regimen involves cleansing, moisturising, and using skin barrier protectants. Cyanoacrylate‐based protectants safeguard vulnerable skin from damage caused by moisture, friction, and shear. This research involved two ex vivo and two clinical studies comparing the wear duration and wash‐off resistance of a 100% cyanoacrylate and a solvent‐cyanoacrylate mixture. Effectiveness was assessed using an ex vivo porcine skin model simulating urinary incontinence, evaluated with Lucifer yellow dye penetration and Corneometry, and a clinical model using Corneometry. Two single‐blind clinical studies measured skin surface electrical capacitance in healthy volunteers. Study 1 (n = 42) evaluated the wear duration over 8 days, while Study 2 (n = 52) examined wash‐off resistance after nine washes with various cleansers. Ex vivo results showed that both products were effective under repeated moisture and abrasion conditions, with the 100% cyanoacrylate outperforming the solvent‐cyanoacrylate mixture. In clinical studies, both products maintained barrier protection throughout Study 1 (p < 0.007) and none of the cleansers significantly degraded either product in Study 2. In conclusion, the 100% cyanoacrylate provided superior protection compared to the solvent‐cyanoacrylate mixture. Both products demonstrated comparable wear duration and wash‐off resistance in clinical studies, but the 100% cyanoacrylate was more effective in ex vivo testing under harsh conditions.

IntroductionStandard in vitro and in vivo tests help demonstrate efficacy of hand hygiene products; however, there is no standard in vivo test method for viruses. We investigated the bactericidal and virucidal efficacy of povidone-iodine (PVP-I) 7.5% scalp and skin cleanser, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) 4% hand cleanser and the reference hand wash (soft soap) in 15 healthy volunteers following European Standard EN1499 (hygienic hand wash test method for bacteria), which was adapted for virucidal testing.MethodsSeparate test series were performed for bactericidal (Escherichia coli) and virucidal [murine norovirus (MNV)] testing. After pre-washing and artificial contamination of hands with test organisms, volunteers underwent testing with 3 and 5 mL of each product for contact times of 15, 30 and 60 s according to a Latin-square randomization. The number of test organisms released from fingertips into sampling fluids was assessed before and after hand washing and mean log10 reduction factor (RF) was calculated. RFs (test-reference) were compared using a Wilcoxon–Wilcox multiple comparisons test per EN1499; efficacy was concluded if p ≤ 0.01.ResultsPVP-I 7.5% and CHG 4% cleansers both passed EN1499 requirements against E. coli, with statistically significantly greater (p ≤ 0.01) mean log10 RFs compared with reference soft soap across all tests (PVP-I: 4.09–5.27; CHG: 4.12–5.22; soap: 2.75–3.11). The experimental design using EN1499 was applicable to testing with MNV as discriminatory and reproducible results were generated. Mean log10 RFs of MNV were statistically significantly greater for PVP-I (1.57–2.57) compared with soft soap (1.24–1.62), while mean log10 RFs with CHG (0.90–1.34) were lower than for soft soap across all tests.ConclusionPVP-I 7.5% cleanser showed superior efficacy against MNV compared to soft soap and CHG 4% cleanser, while both PVP-I and CHG were superior to soft soap against E. coli. The experimental set-up may be applicable to future testing for antiviral hand washes.FundingMundipharma Manufacturing Pte Ltd.Plain Language SummaryPlain language summary available for this article.

Aim: This study aimed to determine the effect of three commercially available denture cleansers on surface hardness of two different silicone denture liners at various time intervals. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 cylindrical specimens of permanent silicone-based soft liners were prepared from a custom made metal mold with dimensions of 15 mm × 10 mm, of which 60 specimens were fabricated using Voco™ and the remaining 60 specimens with Molossil™ permanent denture liners. All specimens were divided into four major groups based on cleansing treatments, comprising 30 specimens each. And then, all cleansers dissolved in 250 mL water as recommended by the manufacturer. Specimens of the first group were cleansed daily by rinsing with water and second group with Periogard™ denture cleansing solution and third group with Secure™ denture cleansing solution and the fourth group with Polident™ denture cleansing solution. Specimens of all groups were tested on 1st week, 1st month, and 6th month time interval using a Shore A Durometer. Three readings were noted for each sample and the mean of those readings was taken. Results: Surface hardness of all the samples was significantly higher after a period of 6 months irrespective of the cleansing treatment. Statistically significant changes were observed between Polident™, Secure™, and Periogard™ denture cleanser groups over control with time. Minor changes were observed in surface hardness of Voco™ denture liners as compared to Molossil™ soft liners for all groups, as time progressed. Conclusion: Voco™ soft denture lining material can be performed significantly better than Mollosil™ soft denture lining material in all cleansing treatments and Polident™ denture cleanser has the least effect on surface hardness of soft liners than Periogard™ and Secure™ denture cleansing agents.

With bonded restorations gaining rapid popularity in clinical dentistry, manufacturers have introduced a variety of bonding protocols and materials. These materials, including surface modifiers and cleaning agents, are designed to decontaminate surfaces and enhance bonding effectiveness. In this study, six different combinations of mechanical and chemical modifications were tested on a lithium disilicate surface to determine the combination that offers optimal resistance to shear stresses. The tested surface modifications included 9% hydrofluoric acid, sandblasting with 29 μm aluminum oxide (Al2O3) particles, Ivoclean (a recently introduced decontamination agent), Monobond Etch & Prime (a one-stage etching and priming agent for ceramic surfaces), Monobond Plus (a silane agent), and the bonding agent Adhese Universal. Six different sequence combinations were tested and compared to the negative control group. The highest bond strength was achieved using all materials and cleansing methods in a logical order, while the bond strength was lowest in the absence of surface modification (control group). The results indicate a significantly positive influence on bond strength of silane coupling agents present in surface modifiers, including pure forms like Monobond Plus. Potential negative effects of cleansing agents or methods on bond strength were not observed. Multiple and separate stages in the treatment of the lithium disilicate surface positively impact bond strength. Cleansing agents may prove beneficial in clinical conditions, and they do not interfere with bonding.

Maintaining the physiological acid–base balance of the skin is critical to preserving the integrity of the epidermal barrier and preventing irritation. This study investigates the short-term effects of natural soaps, prepared using cold and hot processes, on skin surface pH. A double-blind, controlled design was applied to assess changes in pH following application of soap formulations. pH levels were measured in vivo using non-invasive instrumentation at baseline and 2, 15 and 30 min post-application in 41 adult volunteers. The results demonstrated a significant increase in skin pH immediately after exposure to both types of natural soap, with elevated values persisting for up to 30 min. These changes were associated with potential disruption of the skin’s acid mantle and reduced buffering capacity. The findings highlight the importance of pH considerations in the formulation and routine use of natural cleansers. Although natural soaps are often perceived as gentle alternatives, their alkalinity may transiently disturb the skin’s acid–base homeostasis, potentially leading to increased transepidermal water loss and barrier impairment. This study supports the need for reformulation strategies and consumer awareness regarding the physicochemical impact of cleansing agents on skin health.

The focus of Handbook for Cleaning/Decontamination of Surfaces lies on cleaning and decontamination of surfaces and solid matter, hard as well as soft. Bringing together in a 2-volume reference source: - current knowledge of the physico-chemical fundamentals underlying the cleaning process; - the different needs for cleaning and how these needs are met by various types of cleaning processes and cleaning agents, including novel approaches; - how to test that cleaning has taken place and to what extent; - the effects of cleaning on the environment; - future trends in cleaning and decontamination, for example the idea of changing surfaces, to hinder the absorbance of dirt and thus make cleaning easier. A brief introduction is given to the legal demands concerning the environment and a historical background, in terms of development of detergents, from soaps to the modern sophisticated formulations. Bactericides, their use and the environmental demands on them are covered. Thorough discussions of mechanisms for cleaning are given in several chapters, both general basic concepts and special cases like particle cleaning and cleaning using microemulsion concepts. * General understanding of how cleaning works, function of ingredients and formulations * Overview of environmental issues and demands from the society in the area * Gives basic formulas for cleaning preparations in most areas

an adequate bowel preparation is essential for good mucosal inspection during colonoscopy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two validated oral lavage solutions for colonoscopy preparation in African patients. a prospective observational study of patients undergoing colonoscopy in a referral endoscopy facility in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, using sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SPMC) and 4L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG). Variables collated were sociodemographic, primary indication, comorbidities, Aronchick bowel preparation scale, polyp/adenoma detection, caecal intubation and outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 20. one hundred and twenty-four patients received PEG prior to colonoscopy and SPMC in 175 patients. The age range was from 22 to 92 years; mean age of 53.8 ± 14.2 years for PEG group and 55.3 ± 13.2 years for SPMC group (p=0.361). There were 215 males and 84 females. An excellent/good bowel preparation scale was recorded in 77 (62%) PEG group and 130 (74.3%) for SPMC group (p=0.592). PEG was predominantly used in the early years of endoscopists practice with the odds ratio (OR) of no polyp detection in the PEG vs SPMC groups as 1.64 (confidence interval CI 1.06-2.55) versus 0.76 (CI 0.62-0.92), respectively (p=0.016). For no adenoma detection, OR was 4.18 (CI 1.12-15.60) versus OR 0.63 (CI 0.52-0.75), respectively (p=0.012). there is similar efficacy profile using either split volume PEG or SPMC prior to colonoscopy in these African patients. Polyp and adenoma detection rates are highly dependent on the expertise of the endoscopist.

Abstract Constipation is one of the most common functional gastrointestinal disorders and affects 20% of the general population. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional disorder of the gastrointestinal tract that affects the large intestine and is characterized by chronic abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. We report a case of a 35-year-old African American man with a past medical history of IBS who presented to the clinic with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and bloody diarrhea for 1 week. The patient stated that he used a colon-cleansing agent because of persistent constipation. Computed tomography scan of the patient’s abdomen and pelvis with contrast was performed which showed diffuse contiguous segmental mural thickening and nodularity seen along the distal transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon. Colonoscopy showed moderate diffuse inflammation characterized by altered vascularity, erythema, and granularity from the rectum to the descending colon, and localized mild inflammation characterized by erythema was found at the ileocecal valve. The patient’s clinical condition improved with symptomatic management over 10 days. Patients with IBS should be advised to restrain from using a colon-cleansing agent without advice from their primary doctor as it can lead to various complications.

Pin site infection is the most common complication using external fixators. This study investigated the differences in pin site infections, antibiotic use, pain, and complications using sodium chloride and chlorhexidine solution as cleansing agent in patients operated on by the hemicallotasis technique for knee deformities. The prospective study included 49 consecutive patients: 2 mg/ml chlorhexidine solution was used as cleansing agent in 30 patients (120 pins) and 9 mg/ml sodium chloride in 19 patients (76 pins). We evaluated the status of the pin sites, pain (VAS), uses of antibiotic and analgesic agents, and any complications (infections were graded according to the Checketts-Otterburns classification). Bacterial cultures were performed from each pin site at 1, 6, and 10 weeks and from the pins at removal. Grade 1 infection was found in 14% of the sodium chloride group and in 8.5% of the chlorhexidine group, and grade 2 infection in and 3% and 0.5%, respectively. With sodium chloride there was a significantly higher relative risk for positive cultures (1.7) and for the presence of Staphylococcus aureus (3.3). The chlorhexidine group required significantly fewer antibotics reported significantly less pain at weeks 6 and 10. Chlorhexidine solution (2 mg/ml) as cleansing agent in pin site care is preferable to sodium chloride in patients operated on by the hemicallotasis technique.

We compared the effectiveness of alcohol gel with that of the traditional hand-cleansing agents in removing clinical strains of Acinetobacter baumannii, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans from artificially contaminated hands. The fingertips of 6 volunteers were contaminated with approximately 10(6) of microbial cells, and then were washed with: plain liquid soap, alcohol gel, 70% ethyl alcohol (by weight), 10% povidone-iodine liquid soap (PVP-I), and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate detergent. The experiments were performed using a Latin square statistical design, with six 6 x 5 randomized blocks, and the results were estimated by ANOVA. The products reduced from 93.83% (plain liquid soap) to 100% (PVP-I) of the microbial population applied to the hands. In 4 of 6 test microorganisms analyzed, 10% PVP-I, alcohol gel, 70% ethyl alcohol, and 4% chlorhexidine had significantly higher removal rates than plain liquid soap (P < 0.05). The results confirm the effectiveness of alcohol gel for hand hygiene and suggest that 10% PVP-I, alcohol gel, 70% ethyl alcohol, and 4% chlorhexidine may be more effective than plain liquid soap for removing A. baumannii, E. coli, E. faecalis, and C. albicans strains from heavily contaminated hands. Nós comparamos a eficácia do álcool gel com a dos tradicionais agentes degermantes preconizados para a lavagem das mãos na remoção de amostras clínicas de Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa e Candida albicans das mãos artificialmente contaminadas. As pontas dos dedos dos voluntários (n=6) foram contaminadas com aproximadamente 10(6) de células/microrganismo teste. A seguir, as mãos foram lavadas com sabonete líquido não medicamentoso, álcool gel, álcool etílico 70% (concentração por peso) e soluções anti-sépticas detergentes de polivinilpirrolidona-iodo a 10% (PVP-I) e de gluconato de clorhexidina 4%. Os experimentos foram realizados segundo um quadrado latino com seis blocos aleatorizados 6 x 5. Os resultados foram estimados por ANOVA. Os produtos reduziram de 93,83% (sabão líquido) a 100% (PVP-I 10%) a população microbiana aplicada nas mãos. Em 4 dos 6 microrganismos testes analisados, o PVP-I 10%, o álcool gel, o álcool etílico 70% e a clorhexidina 4% mostraram uma taxa de remoção significantemente superior a do sabão líquido (P < 0,05). Os resultados confirmam a eficácia do álcool gel na higienização das mãos e sugerem que o PVP-I 10%, o álcool gel, o álcool etílico 70% e a clorhexidina 4% podem ser os agentes mais eficazes do que o sabão líquido não medicamentoso na remoção de Acinetobacter baumannii, Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis e Candida albicans das mãos altamente contaminadas.