Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evaluation of toothbrush disinfection via different methods

A selection of abstracts of clinically relevant papers from other journals. The abstracts on this page have been chosen and edited by John R. Radford.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state 'the likelihood of toothbrush cross-contamination in these environments (schools and group settings) is very high.'


Basman A, Peker I et al. Braz Oral Res 2016;30: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0006

ChildSmile has resulted in a dramatic reduction in dental caries in children; they are encouraged to brush their teeth daily at school with a fluoride toothpaste. In order to minimise cross-contamination, toothbrushes are stored in a spaced storage system. Symbols are displayed that allow each child to identify their own bush. In this study, 60 volunteers brushed their teeth twice each day for 7 days. Following brushing, the toothbrush was treated according to the following regimens: immersed in 1) 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 2) 2% sodium hypochlorite, 3) a mouthrinse containing essential oils and alcohol (Listerine), 4) 50% white vinegar, 5) a tap water control, and 6) subjected to a dishwasher cycle. Following each disinfection regimen, the toothbrush was washed in water and stored in a vented container. White vinegar was the most effective method for disinfecting toothbrushes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Evaluation of toothbrush disinfection via different methods. Br Dent J 221, 716 (2016).

Download citation


Quick links