Aa
antiseptic mouthwash and STD transmission
Is the risk of STD transmission via unprotected oral sex affected by the use of an antiseptic mouth wash either before (for transmission from the giver to the receiver of oral sex) or after (for transmission from the receiver to the giver) oral sex. There was a post on this forum from September 30, 2006 in which Dr. Hunter Handsfield reported:
"Topical antiseptics, including listerine, have not been studied for their effectiveness in STD prevention. The best guess, based on distant past experience with other antiseptics (from thw WW II era) suggests little effect. Washing after sex can't hurt, but I doubt using listerine, alcohol, etc does not any difference beyond the minor benefit of soap and water."
Can someone kindly explain why the use of an antiseptic mouth was would have little or no impact on oral transmission of STD? I understand that viruses (HIV, HPV) might not be killed by an antiseptic mouth wash but would the load of other microorganisms be reduced in the oral cavity thus reducing transmission risk? This seems counter to basic germ theory and to countless public health recommendations to wash your hands to reduce transmission of various infections (including the flu virus). I know that we're talking about something other than handwashing but the logic still seems to apply to the current example. Is it possible that antiseptic mouthwashes simply don't work to reduce the microbe levels? If that is so, why do dentists have patients rinse with an antiseptic mouthwash?
"Topical antiseptics, including listerine, have not been studied for their effectiveness in STD prevention. The best guess, based on distant past experience with other antiseptics (from thw WW II era) suggests little effect. Washing after sex can't hurt, but I doubt using listerine, alcohol, etc does not any difference beyond the minor benefit of soap and water."
Can someone kindly explain why the use of an antiseptic mouth was would have little or no impact on oral transmission of STD? I understand that viruses (HIV, HPV) might not be killed by an antiseptic mouth wash but would the load of other microorganisms be reduced in the oral cavity thus reducing transmission risk? This seems counter to basic germ theory and to countless public health recommendations to wash your hands to reduce transmission of various infections (including the flu virus). I know that we're talking about something other than handwashing but the logic still seems to apply to the current example. Is it possible that antiseptic mouthwashes simply don't work to reduce the microbe levels? If that is so, why do dentists have patients rinse with an antiseptic mouthwash?
Good Morning, I am wondering if HIV can be transmitted by brushing, flossing, or using an antiseptic mouth wash before and after unprotected oral sex in a gay men relationship.
1 Comments
No, oral sex is not a risk, and the things you mention don't make it one.
Other things can be transmitted by oral sex, though - from receiving oral sex, you could get gonorrhea, herpes type 1 (if you don't already have it), syphilis and NGU. The most likely of these is NGU, which is an infection in your urethra and can be caused by normal mouth bacteria entering the urethra.
Performing oral on a man would put you at risk for gonorrhea in your throat and syphilis.
You can test for gonorrhea and NGU at 3-5 days.
You can test for herpes now to see if you already have type 1 - many do and most never get cold sores/oral outbreaks. If it's negative, you can test again at 4 months, but if you don't get symptoms, I wouldn't overly worry about this.
You can test for syphilis at 6 weeks, though it takes some people up to 3 months. If you don't get symptoms after 6 weeks, I wouldn't worry about it.
Flossing, brushing, etc., doesn't increase or decrease your risk.
Other things can be transmitted by oral sex, though - from receiving oral sex, you could get gonorrhea, herpes type 1 (if you don't already have it), syphilis and NGU. The most likely of these is NGU, which is an infection in your urethra and can be caused by normal mouth bacteria entering the urethra.
Performing oral on a man would put you at risk for gonorrhea in your throat and syphilis.
You can test for gonorrhea and NGU at 3-5 days.
You can test for herpes now to see if you already have type 1 - many do and most never get cold sores/oral outbreaks. If it's negative, you can test again at 4 months, but if you don't get symptoms, I wouldn't overly worry about this.
You can test for syphilis at 6 weeks, though it takes some people up to 3 months. If you don't get symptoms after 6 weeks, I wouldn't worry about it.
Flossing, brushing, etc., doesn't increase or decrease your risk.
infections aren't laying in your mouth after performing oral and working their way down into your body to infect you. It's the heat and friction of the sex act that transmits most of them. So gargling after performing oral isn't going to protect you - already too late by the time it's over with . As far as gargling prior to oral to protect a partner, well I'd hope that if you knew you had something you were properly treating it and not being intimate with anyone until after enough time had passed for the infection to be cleared.
cold and flu germs survive well on surfaces and are easily transmitted thru hand to oral/nasal/eye contact which is why we recommend hand washing.
If you had more specific std's in mind, feel free to post more specific questions about them.
grace
cold and flu germs survive well on surfaces and are easily transmitted thru hand to oral/nasal/eye contact which is why we recommend hand washing.
If you had more specific std's in mind, feel free to post more specific questions about them.
grace
1 Comments
Thank for your perspective, grace.
"I'd hope that if you knew you had something you were properly treating it and not being intimate with anyone until after enough time had passed for the infection to be cleared. "
This advice does not apply in many cases, making the question still highly relevant for everyone.
For example:
1) there is no way for anyone to know if they have oral HPV - no tests exist.
2) Herpes can be infectious without the carrier knowing it: many test positive for herpes 1 yet have never had an outbreak to know where it might be transmitted from; should an outbreak occur, it can be infectious before there are signs of this to the bearer.
"infections aren't laying in your mouth after performing oral and working their way down into your body to infect you. It's the heat and friction of the sex act that transmits most of them. So gargling after performing oral isn't going to protect you - already too late by the time it's over with"
This statement begs for more clarity. Are you saying that the heat and friction of oral sex induces contamination fully into the bloodstream, such that contamination (if it happens) has already occurred by the time the act is done, rather than following the act?
If so, how does this jive with other kinds of contaminations we all know about? For example, if someone sneezes on me or I touch a contaminated surface and then put my finger in my eye or mouth, an infection can occur with little to no heat or friction. If heat & friction were necessary, there would be little benefit taking the precautions we do around being near others who are sick or washing our hands before touching our eyes or mouth.
Furthermore, here is one piece of scientific evidence that seems to contradict you're perspective: http://sti.bmj.com/content/early/2016/11/29/sextrans-2016-052753
"I'd hope that if you knew you had something you were properly treating it and not being intimate with anyone until after enough time had passed for the infection to be cleared. "
This advice does not apply in many cases, making the question still highly relevant for everyone.
For example:
1) there is no way for anyone to know if they have oral HPV - no tests exist.
2) Herpes can be infectious without the carrier knowing it: many test positive for herpes 1 yet have never had an outbreak to know where it might be transmitted from; should an outbreak occur, it can be infectious before there are signs of this to the bearer.
"infections aren't laying in your mouth after performing oral and working their way down into your body to infect you. It's the heat and friction of the sex act that transmits most of them. So gargling after performing oral isn't going to protect you - already too late by the time it's over with"
This statement begs for more clarity. Are you saying that the heat and friction of oral sex induces contamination fully into the bloodstream, such that contamination (if it happens) has already occurred by the time the act is done, rather than following the act?
If so, how does this jive with other kinds of contaminations we all know about? For example, if someone sneezes on me or I touch a contaminated surface and then put my finger in my eye or mouth, an infection can occur with little to no heat or friction. If heat & friction were necessary, there would be little benefit taking the precautions we do around being near others who are sick or washing our hands before touching our eyes or mouth.
Furthermore, here is one piece of scientific evidence that seems to contradict you're perspective: http://sti.bmj.com/content/early/2016/11/29/sextrans-2016-052753
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the STDs / STIs Community
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Millions of people are diagnosed with STDs in the U.S. each year.
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
