Experimental gingivitis studies: effects of triclosan and triclosan-containing dentifrices on dental plaque and gingivitis in three-week randomized controlled clinical trials

A recently reported six-month gingivitis study demonstrated that in subjects with gingivitis, a triclosan/pyrophosphate dentifrice provided supragingival plaque control. The level of plaque reduction was comparable with that reported for other triclosan-containing dentifrices; however, no reductions in gingivitis were observed for triclosan/pyrophosphate relative to the negative control. One possible explanation of this result is that the Hawthorne effect in the study was too great to allow the detection of a treatment benefit for the triclosan product. In order to further explore the relevance of these results, three independent clinical studies were undertaken utilizing designs based on a 21-day experimental gingivitis model in which Hawthorne effects are minimized, in part due to the absence of toothbrushing. In each model, a pre-study prophylaxis was followed by a three-week period of oral hygiene instruction to establish optimum baseline gingival health in study participants. The studies varied in enrollment; 120, 33 and 32 subjects completed treatment on studies 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In study 1, test articles were dentifrice products (0.28% triclosan/5% pyrophosphate/0.145% sodium fluoride, 0.2% triclosan/0.5% zinc citrate/0.112% sodium fluoride, 0.145% sodium fluoride and 0.15% sodium monofluorophosphate) applied neat and undiluted via a performed tooth shield (that prevents mechanical tooth-brushing at the test sites in the oral cavity) in a partial mouth design. In study 2, test articles were also dentifrice products (0.28% triclosan/5% pyrophosphate/0.243% sodium fluoride, 0.3% triclosan/2% Gantrez copolymer/0.24% sodium fluoride and 0.243% sodium fluoride) but administered to subjects in the form of 1:3 aqueous slurry rinses. Lastly, in study 3, test articles were all mouthrinses (0.12% chlorhexidine, 0.045% triclosan in ethanol plus respective vehicle placebos). Clinical assessments to quantify the test articles' effects on the development of plaque and gingivitis were conducted at baseline (studies 1, 2 and 3), day 7 (studies 2 and 3), day 14 (studies 2 and 3) and day 21 (studies 1, 2 and 3). In study 1, no statistically significant treatment effects were observed between the test articles and controls for plaque or gingivitis development. In study 2, no statistically significant treatment effects were observed at any time point between test products for the development of gingivitis. At days 7 and 14, there were no significant differences between test products and control for plaque development as well. At day 21, the group rinsing with the triclosan/pyrophosphate/sodium fluoride slurry had significantly less plaque accumulation than the group rinsing with the triclosan/copolymer/sodium fluoride slurry (p < 0.05); however, neither of the groups using test products containing triclosan was significantly different for plaque development from the group using the sodium fluoride control test article. In addition, aspartate aminotransferase activity in gingival crevicular fluid was assayed at days 0 and 21; no between-group differences were found at either of these time points, though day 21 AST activities were higher than those at baseline. In study 3, statistically significant treatment differences in plaque regrowth and gingivitis were observed at day 21 for the chlorhexidine rinse versus all other rinses (p < 0.05). No other statistically significant treatment effects were observed between test compounds at any other time points. The results benchmark the anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis benefit for a range of triclosan-based product forms against positive and negative controls in a three different experimental gingivitis models, a design considered predictive of clinical efficacy in longer-term investigations. It is concluded that dentifrice products containing triclosan do not possess sufficient antimicrobial activity to suppress plaque and gingivitis development in the absence of normal oral hygiene, and that relative to chlorhexidine, triclosan itself offers only modest efficacy for the prevention of plaque accumulation and therefore the delayed onset of gingivitis.     

Effect of different chlorhexidine formulations in mouthrinses on de novo plaque formation

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution, still the golden standard as mouthrinse for the prevention of plaque formation and development of gingivitis, has some limited side-effects such as extrinsic tooth staining, poor taste, taste disturbance, sensitivity changes in tongue, pain, and the content of alcohol. These side effects led to the search of new formulations. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, cross-over study, 16 young dental students with a healthy periodontium, abolished all means of mechanical plaque control during 4 experimental periods of 11 days (separated from each other by a washout period of 3 weeks). During each experimental period, they rinsed 2x daily with one of the following mouthrinses in a randomised order: CHX 0.2% + alcohol (Corsodyl), CHX 0.12% + alcohol (Perio.Aid), CHX 0.12% + sodium fluoride 0.05% (Cariax Gingival) and CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% (Perio.Aid, new formulation). After 7 and 11 days of undisturbed plaque formation, clinical parameters were recorded, questionnaires completed and plaque samples (supragingivally and saliva) collected. RESULTS: The CHX 0.12% + alcohol and the CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% formulations were as efficient as the CHX 0.2% mouthrinse in retarding de novo plaque formation (proven by clinical observations as well as by anaerobic and aerobic culture data), and always superior (p<0.001) to the CHX 0.12% + sodium fluoride 0.05% solution. The subjective ratings were in favour of the new CHX formulation when compared with the other CHX formulations, especially for taste (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated the potential of a new CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% non-alcoholic formulation as an effective anti-plaque and anti-inflammatory agent with reduced unpleasant subjective side-effects.     

The effect of mouthrinses containing zinc and triclosan on plaque accumulation and development of gingivitis in a 3-week clinical test

Abstract. Experimental mouthrinses containing 0.4% zinc sulphate and 0.15% triclosan were compared with a chlorhexidne and a negative control mouthrinse in a 3-week clinical trial. The zinc/triclosan mouthrinses 1 and 2 differed in their ethanol and humectant contents used to deliver the triclosan. The experimental protocol employed the partial mouth gingivitis design, whereby participants wear a toothshield during toothbrushing. Gingival health at baseline was established by professional cleaning, oral hygiene instruction and effective toothbrushing 3 × per day during a pre-experimental period of 2 weeks. The mouthrinses were subsequently used 2 × daily following normal toothbrushing during 3 weeks. The pre-experimental oral hygiene phase very effectively reduced plaque levels and gingival bleeding. During the rinsing period, in the absence of mechanical removal of plaque from the protected teeth, gingival bleeding rose to above the prestudy level in the negative control group. The increments (change from baseline to 21 days) of plaque and bleeding scores for the zinc/triclosan mouthrinse 1 were significantly lower than those in the negative control group. As expected, plaque and gingivitis scores were lowest in the group that rinsed with chlorhexidine. The results extend previous observations on the efficacy of the zinc/triclosan system to maintain gingival health.     

The effect of delmopinol rinsing on dental plaque formation and gingivitis healing

The aim of this study was to investigate a possible dose-response effect of delmopinol hydrochloride, on the development of plaque and on the healing of gingivitis. 64 healthy male volunteers, aged 18-40 years with healthy gingivae and clean teeth, participated. During a 2-week period, the participants refrained from all oral hygiene and rinsed 2x daily with a placebo solution. On day 14 of the study, they received professional toothcleaning, and were randomly assigned to 4 groups. For the following 2 weeks, they rinsed 2x daily for 1 min with 10 ml of 0.05% (15 subjects), 0.1% (17) or 0.2% (16) delmopinol, respectively. 16 subjects rinsed with 0.2% chlorhexidine. No oral hygiene procedures were performed during the test period. On days 0, 14 and 28, gingival bleeding index and the presence of stainable plaque were determined. Periodic identical photographs were used for planimetric determination of buccal plaque extension. No significant difference for the reduction in gingival bleeding index was found between 0.2% delmopinol and chlorhexidine rinsing. The mean plaque index showed its most significant reduction on lingual surfaces of both upper and lower jaws when rinsing with 0.2% delmopinol. Mean plaque extension was reduced by 23% for 0.05%, 39% for 0.1% and 55% for 0.2% delmopinol. A significant dose-response effect for 0.05%, 0.1% and 0.2% delmopinol was found for gingival bleeding index, plaque index and plaque extension. The results show that delmopinol favors the healing of gingivitis and reduces plaque formation.     

Clinical effect of a sanguinaria dentifrice on plaque and gingivitis in adults

A clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of a sanguinaria-zinc chloride dentifrice on the prevention of plaque formation and gingivitis. A total of 59 young adults, 18 to 30 years of age, either performed supervised brushing with a 0.075% sanguinaria-0.05% zinc chloride dentifrice, a 0.24% sodium fluoride dentifrice, or rinsed daily with a 0.05% NaF solution. Clinical evaluations for plaque and gingivitis were performed after 7, 14, and 21 days of the test regimen. After 21 days, all subjects resumed twice daily supervised brushing and flossing and post-test evaluations were conducted after two weeks. The results showed that after 7, 14, and 21 days both groups using dentifrices had significantly less plaque and gingivitis than the group using the rinse, and there were no significant differences between the two groups using either the sanguinaria-ZnCl2 or the NaF dentifrices.     

Effect of delmopinol hydrochloride mouthrinse on plaque formation and gingivitis in "rapid" and "slow" plaque formers

Abstract The aim of the present study was to investigate differences in the plaque and gingivitis inhibiting effect of delmopinol rinsing between “rapid” and “slow” plaque formers. 23 subjects (12 “rapid” and 11 “slow” plaque formers) were selected from 71 healthy young adults. The selection was based on the plaque index on the buccal surfaces of all premolars and 1st molars after 3-days without plaque control. The 23 subjects were randomly assigned into 3 groups with different mouthrinses, i.e., 0.1% delmopinol, 0.2% delmopinol, and placebo. The study was double-blind with parallel design between the “rapid” and “slow” plaque formers and cross-over design between 2 active periods and a placebo period. Each rinsing period lasted for 5 days. During the 3 test periods, the subjects refrained from all oral hygiene and rinsed 2 × daily with either one of the 3 solutions. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was collected from buccal surfaces of upper canines and premolars and bleeding on probing (BOP) recorded at 6 sites around each tooth before and after each test period. Plaque assessment, including plaque index (PI) and standardized color slides for planimetric analyses obtained from the canines and premolars, were only recorded after each test period. Results showed that the mean PI and planimetry values for both the “rapid” and “slow” plaque formers were lower than the placebo, for either the 0.1% or the 0.2% delmopinol mouthrinse. The differences between the “rapid” and “slow” plaque formers were not statistically significant. There was a small reduction in BOP in both groups for the delmopinol periods, as against a slight increase in the placebo period: the difference between the placebo group and the 2 groups of plaque formers was not statistically significant (p>0.6 for both 0.1% and 0.2% delmopinol). Results suggested that both 0.1% and 0.2% delmopinol reduce plaque formation and gingivitis to a similar extent in subjects with extreme rates of plaque formation.     

Efficacy of chlorhexidine mouthrinses with and without alcohol: a clinical study

BACKGROUND: Plaque control is the main method for preventing periodontal diseases. Chlorhexidine digluconate mouthrinse is widely recognized as helping to maintain plaque control. Most of these mouthrinses contain alcohol, making them impractical for many patients, including those with oral mucosal hypersensitivity. Mouthrinses without alcohol might cause fewer side effects, but also be less efficient. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of a 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse without alcohol against one with 11% ethanol and a placebo. METHODS: This a double-blind, parallel group study with 96 patients who tested 3 mouthrinses containing 1) chlorhexidine digluconate 0.12% sodium fluoride 0.05%, and ethanol 11% (group 1; CHX-A); 2) the same solution without alcohol (group 2; CHX-NA); and a placebo (group 3; P). Plaque and bleeding indexes were recorded in all patients prior to treatment and at 14 and 28 days. RESULTS: There were significant differences in plaque, gingivitis, and papilla bleeding indexes in both chlorhexidine rinses compared to placebo, but no differences between the 2 CHX products. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the alcohol-free rinse was as effective as one containing alcohol in controlling plaque and reducing gingival inflammation. Therefore, it would seem that its use can be recommended in all patients, but especially in patients for whom the use of alcohol is contraindicated.     

The effect of 3 mouthrinses on plaque and gingivitis development.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of 3 mouthrinses, Listerine Antiseptic (thymol), Peridex (chlorhexidine), Perimed (povidone iodine and hydrogen peroxide), and a placebo (water) on the development of dental plaque and gingivitis, when used as the only oral hygiene procedure for 14 days. 71 subjects were entered into a randomized, double-blind study. At the baseline examination, papillary bleeding score (PBS), and plaque index (PI) were registered, after which subjects received supragingival prophylaxis and were assigned to 1 of 4 study cells. Subjects were asked to refrain from all oral hygiene procedures except for the supervised 14-day 2 x daily rinsing with the assigned preparation. At day 14, the same clinical parameters were again registered. Statistical analysis was performed by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the 4 groups, followed by Duncan's multiple range test to determine specific group differences. At baseline, average PBS and PI scores were similar for all 4 groups. After 14 days, the average PBS for Peridex and Perimed was significantly lower than for Listerine Antiseptic and water. The frequency of interdental units with a PBS greater than 2 was significantly lower for Peridex and Perimed than for Listerine Antiseptic and water. We concluded that both Peridex and Perimed were effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis when used as a 2 x daily mouthrinse by subjects refraining from other oral hygiene procedures. In vitro, a synergistic effect was assumed when inhibition was achieved with Perimed at the same or greater dilution than was achieved with povidone-iodine alone.     

Clinical controlled study on plaque and gingivitis reduction under long-term use of low-dose chlorhexidine solutions in a population exhibiting good oral hygiene

The aim of this randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blind clinical study was to examine the dental plaque and the gingivitis inhibitory effects of two low-dose 0.06% chlorhexidine (CHX) preparations in comparison to a commercially available 0.1% CHX solution, an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (ASF) solution and a water control as an adjunct to the daily mechanical oral-hygiene measures. After prophylaxis, 81 medical students performed their tooth cleaning and were asked to rinse for 30 s, according to the instructions given by the manufacturers with the assigned amount of the following solutions: once daily 10 ml ASF 250 ppm or twice daily each 10 ml CHX 0.06% with fluoride, 10 ml CHX 0.06% without fluoride, 15 ml CHX 0.1% or 100 ml tap water. The plaque index (PlI), the gingival index (GI) and the discoloration index (DI) were taken at day -14 and months (M) 0, 1, 2, 3 and 6. In this study group with good oral hygiene, all test products led to a reduction of the PlI scores when used as supplements to the usual mechanical hygiene measures. At M3 subjects using both the 0.1% as well as the 0.06% CHX showed significantly less plaque accumulation than those using ASF. In the GI a significant difference between the control and 0.1 % CHX was found at M3 and at M6. If a further decrease in the GI is wanted, a minimum concentration of 0.1% CHX for long-term use in association with habitual cleaning is needed, which, however, should be limited to special patients. If maintaining clinical health is the goal, the other solutions are a good alternative to 0.1% CHX because they exhibit less staining.     

Chemotherapeutic inhibition of supragingival dental plaque and gingivitis development

Abstract A 6-month double-blind, controlled clinical study was conducted on 107 healthy adult subjects to determine the efficacy of a mouthrinse used as a supplement to regular oral hygiene measures on supragingival dental plaque and gingivitis. 115 healthy adult patients were recruited for the study. Following screening examinations for minimal entry levels of existing gingivitis and plaque in patients with a minimum of 20 sound natural teeth, extrinsic tooth stain, gingivitis and plaque index scores were recorded. Soft tissues were evaluated. All subjects then received a complete dental prophylaxis, removing plaque, calculus and extrinsic stain. Utilizing their normal oral hygiene, subjects began a regimen of rinsing with 20 ml of the randomly assigned rinse, twice daily for 30 s for 6 months. 7 days after prophylaxis, gingivitis was again scored (baseline 2). Soft tissue, gingivitis, plaque area and extrinsic stain were evaluated again at 3 and 6 months. Results demonstrated that after 6 months, listerine produced a 34% inhibition of both plaque and of gingivitis compared to a hydroalcohol control (p<0.001).     

Some effects of mouthrinses containing salifluor on de novo plaque formation and developing gingivitis

Abstract Three clinical trials were carried out to evaluate the effects of mouth-rinses containing 5n-oetanoyl-3’trifluormethylsalieylanilide (salifluor) on plaque and gingivitis. Each trial was performed as a double-blind, randomised and cross-over designed study (studies 1. 2 and 3). In each study, 10 young individuals with healthy gingiva abolished all means of mechanical plaque control during the course of the experimental period including 6 × 4 days (study 1), 3 × 18 days (study1) and 3 × 14 days (study 2). They rinsed, 2 × daily, with various mouthwash preparations for 4 days (study 1), for the last 4 days of a 18 day period (study 2) or for 14 days (study 3), 6 (control, vehicle control, 0.08%. 0.12% and 0.2% salifluor and 0.12% chlorhexidine), 3 (control, 0.12% salifluor and 0.12% chlorhexidine) and 3 (control, 0.12% salifluor and 0.12% chlorhexidine) mouthwash preparations were tested in studies 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The findings of study 1 indicated that (i) mouthrinses containing salifluor were significantly more effective than control rinses and that (ii) the salifluor mouthrinses were equally effective as the 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse, in retarding 4-day de novo plaque formation. The findings of study 2 indicated that (i) the mouthrinse containing 0.12% salifluor retarded de novo plaque formation to the same extent as the 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse at healthy as well as at inflamed sites but that (ii) the anti-plaque effects of the salifluor and chlorhexidine mouthrinses were significantly smaller at sites with inflamed than with healthy gingiva. In study 3, it was observed that there was no significant difference between the 0.12% salifiuor and 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinses in retarding de novo plaque formation and the development of gingivitis during a 14-day period of no mechanical plaque control. Thus, the results of the 3 clinical trials demonstrated the potential of salifluor as an effective anti-plaque and anti-inflammatory agent.     

The effect on early plaque formation, gingivitis and salivary bacterial counts of mouthwashes containing hexetidine/zinc, aminefluoride/tin or chlorhexidine

This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of mouthwashes containing hexetidine/zinc (HZA) or tin (ASF) in inhibiting plaque formation and gingivitis in humans. 24 dental students and assistants participated in the study (latin square design) with 7-day test periods. They rinsed twice daily for 1 min with one of the following formulations: HZA = 750 ppm hexetidine/750 ppm zinc acetate, ASF = 100 ppm aminefluorid/310 ppm stannous fluoride, CHX = 0.1% chlorhexidine and M = negative control. Plaque accumulation was determined planimetrically and gravimetrically. Gingivitis was evaluated with the papillary bleeding index. Total colony forming units and S. mutans counts were estimated from saliva samples. The results showed that HZA and CHX almost completely inhibited plaque accumulation and gingivitis. ASF was less effective than HZA and CHX but still reduced plaque significantly compared to the negative control. Furthermore, CHX reduced salivary S. mutans counts.     

Comparative antiplaque effectiveness of an essential oil and an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride mouthrinse

The adjunctive use of antimicrobial mouthrinses to help control supragingival plaque and gingivitis has been shown to contribute significantly to patients' daily oral hygiene regimens. This controlled clinical study used an observer-blind, randomized, cross-over design in a 4-day plaque regrowth model to determine the relative efficacies of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (Listerine Antiseptic) and an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride-containing mouthrinse (Meridol) in inhibiting the development of supragingival plaque. A 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Chlorhexamed-Fluid) was used as a positive control, and a 5% hydroalcohol solution was used as a negative control. Dosing for each of the test mouthrinses was based on the manufacturers' label directions. Because the volume and rinse time for each of the test mouthrinses were different, each test mouthrinse had its own negative control group. On day 1 of each test period, subjects received an oral soft and hard tissue examination and a dental prophylaxis to remove all plaque, calculus, and extrinsic stain. Starting the same day, subjects refrained from all mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the next 4 days and rinsed 2x daily under supervision with their randomly-assigned mouthrinse. On day 5, each subject received a plaque assessment as well as an oral examination to assess side effects. Each test period was separated by a 2-week washout period. 23 volunteers with a median age of 26 years completed the study. Compared to the respective placebos, the median percent plaque reductions at 5 days were 23.0%, 12.2%, and 38.2% for the essential oil, amine/stannous fluoride, and chlorhexidine rinses, respectively. The plaque reductions seen in the essential oil and chlorhexidine rinse groups were statistically significant (p < 0.001), while the plaque reduction in the amine/stannous fluoride rinse group was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Additionally, the essential oil rinse was significantly more effective (p < 0.001) than the amine/stannous fluoride rinse in inhibiting plaque accumulation in this clinical model.     

Efficacy of Listerine®, Meridol® and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on plaque, gingivitis and plaque bacteria vitality

The experimental gingivitis model was used to compare the anti-plaque, anti-gingivitis and anti-microbial efficacies of a phenolic compound (Listerine) and an amine/stannous fluoride mouthwash (Meridol), using a placebo preparation as negative control and a chlorhexidine solution as positive control in a double-blind study. After professional toothcleaning, 36 volunteers performed optimal oral hygiene for a period of 2 weeks. They then ceased all oral hygiene procedures for 21 days during which they rinsed twice daily with 1 of the 4 mouthrinses. After 3 weeks of rinsing, plaque indices remained the lowest in the chlorhexidine group, while subjects using Listerine or Meridol harbored similar indices significantly lower than that of individuals rinsing with the placebo solution. Up to that time, the gingival index scores were equal in all groups except for the chlorhexidine group in which the values only amounted to half of these encountered in the other groups. The plaque vitality scores showed a bactericidal effect in vivo of chlorhexidine during the entire time of experimental gingivitis. In contrast, the data gave no evidence of an antibacterial effect in vivo of Listerine. The efficacy of Meridol to kill micro-organisms was similar to chlorhexidine during the early stages of plaque accumulation and, with time, became insignificant. This study has demonstrated that chlorhexidine was superior to Listerine and Meridol in its ability to maintain low plaque scores and gingival health during this 3-week period of no mechanical oral hygiene. Moreover, it was also shown that Meridol was as effective as Listerine in reducing plaque accumulation and, in contrast to Listerine, possessed a remarkable but transient antibacterial effect in vivo.     

A modification to the experimental gingivitis protocol to compare the antiplaque properties of two toothpastes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Randomised, blind, controlled experimental gingivitis and home-use study protocols are used to evaluate the efficacy of oral hygiene products. The present methodological study combined the two clinical trial designs to compare the preventive and therapeutic potentials of two toothpastes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was a parallel group, randomised, double-blind design, initially involving 73 healthy dentate subjects. A 21-day experimental gingivitis protocol was combined with a 6-week (42 days) home-use protocol. At baseline, modified gingival index (MGI), gingival index (GI) and gingival bleeding (GB) were recorded. A dental prophylaxis was then performed. Subjects were allocated to either control fluoride or stannous fluoride toothpaste based on gender and GI. During the first 21-day period, subjects applied the allocated toothpaste, for 1 min twice a day, to a group of teeth in a plastic shield and brushed the remaining teeth with the same paste. From day 21 the shield was not placed, and subjects brushed all teeth with the toothpaste for 1 min twice per day up to day 42. MGI, GB and a plaque index (PI) were recorded on days 21 and 42. RESULTS: Sixty-nine and 67 subjects completed to days 21 and 42, respectively. For shielded teeth, PI, MGI and GB increased to day 21 and then after ceasing the use of the shield decreased to day 42. At day 21, PI favoured the stannous fluoride toothpaste, but differences did not achieve statistical significance for any parameter at days 21 or 42. For unshielded teeth, there were no significant differences between the toothpastes for any parameter at either time point. CONCLUSION: : The feasibility of combining two gingivitis clinical trial methodologies appears proven, and data on both the preventive and therapeutic chemical and mechanical efficacy of toothpastes can be obtained through such protocols. Specifically from the present study and consistent with some other reports, the plaque inhibitory properties of the stannous fluoride product are limited and do not always translate into an antiplaque/antigingivitis effect.     

The plaque- and gingivitis-inhibiting capacity of a commercially available essential oil product. A parallel,split-mouth,single blind,randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study

Abstract

Background. Studies have reported commercially available essential oils with convincing plaque and gingivitis preventing properties. However, no tests have compared these essential oils, i.e. Listerine®, against their true vehicle controls. Objective. To compare the plaque and gingivitis inhibiting effect of a commercially-available essential oil (Listerine® Total Care) to a negative (22% hydro-alcohol solution) and a positive (0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX)) control in an experimental gingivitis model. Materials and methods. In three groups of 15 healthy volunteers, experimental gingivitis was induced and monitored over 21 days, simultaneously treated with Listerine® Total Care (test), 22% hydro-alcohol solution (negative control) and 0.2% chlorhexidine solution (positive control), respectively. The upper right quadrant of each individual received mouthwash only, whereas the upper left quadrant was subject to both rinses and mechanical oral hygiene. Plaque, gingivitis and side-effects were assessed at day 7, 14 and 21. Results. After 21 days, the chlorhexidine group showed significantly lower average plaque and gingivitis scores than the Listerine® and alcohol groups, whereas there was little difference between the two latter. Conclusion. Listerine® Total Care had no statistically significant effect on plaque formation as compared to its vehicle control.     

In vitro effect of oral antiseptics on human immunodeficiency virus-1 and herpes simplex virus type 1

AIM: The antiviral effectiveness of widely used commercial mouthrinses has not been well studied. A project was undertaken to evaluate and compare the in vitro antiviral effectiveness of essential oil-containing mouthrinses (LA & TLA) and chlorhexidine mouthrinses (PX & CHX) on 2 different enveloped viruses, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) and Herpes simplex virus (HSV-1) McIntyre strain. METHOD: HIV-1(89.6) (1x10(5)/ml) and HSV-1 (1x10(6)/ml) in RPMI-1640 medium were treated with two commercially available forms of LA & TLA (tartar control LA), and 2 formulations of chlorhexidine [(PX), 0.12% chlorhexidine & (CHX), 0.2% chlorhexidine] for 30 sec. The antiviral effect was estimated by inhibition of the syncytia formation or the cytopathic effect (CPE) for HIV-1 on MT-2 cells and by inhibition of the plaque formation for HSV-1 on Vero cell monolayers. RESULTS: Undiluted LA, TLA, PX and CHX completely inhibited both HIV-189.6 and HSV-1 McIntyre strain. PX and CHX inhibited HIV-1 up to 1:4 dilution, whereas, LA and TLA inhibited HSV-1 up to 1:2 dilution. The antiviral effects of LA and TLA were found to be similar and also the antiviral effect of PX and CHX were also found to be comparable. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used in this investigation allow easy and reproducible evaluations of antiviral efficacy. The anti-HIV-1 and anti-HSV-1 effects of LA, TLA, PX and CHX as evidenced in our in vitro study suggest that we should investigate potential in vivo effects during the use of essential oil-containing or chlorhexidine containing products when used by patients as mouthrinses. If the clinical studies confirm the in vitro data, pre-procedural use by clinicians may be beneficial in reducing viral contamination of bio-aerosols during the delivery of dental care.     

Reduction of stain,plaque and gingivitis by mouth rinsing with chlorhexidine and peroxyborate

Aim of the present study was to investigate whether the use of an oxidising mouthrinse as an adjunct to chlorhexidine is efficacious in reducing stain, plaque and gingivitis. This study had a single-blind, 2-group parallel design, including a 14-day experimental non-brushing period during which 1 group (n = 14) used chlorhexidine alone (CHX) and the other (n = 14) used chlorhexidine in combination with an oxidising agent. Patients were randomly assigned to either group. The gingival condition was evaluated at baseline by means of bleeding on marginal probing. The examination after 14 days of rinsing included the evaluation of plaque, bleeding on marginal probing and stain (GMSI: gingival modification of the stain index). The results showed at day 14 a significant difference between the 2 groups for plaque and gingival bleeding. The proportion of stained surfaces was less in the CHX + PER-group (28%), than in the chlorhexidine group. The adjunctive use of an oxidising agent peroxyborate to chlorhexidine, proved to be superior to chlorhexidine alone with regard to the inhibition of plaque and development of gingivitis.     

Experiments with two-phase plaque-inhibiting mouthrinses

Reports indicate that oil/water mouthrinses with an aqueous phase containing an antibacterial agent, reduce the amount of volatile bacterial products in expiration air compared with aqueous mouthrinses. These systems have not, however, been tested concerning antiplaque activity. The aim of the present study was to examine the plaque-inhibiting effect of a mouthrinse with an aqueous phase containing 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) and an oily phase (soya oil) containing 0.3% triclosan. A test panel rinsed with the mouthrinses twice daily for 4 d. The mouthrinse containing CHX and triclosan in two phases was significantly better than the negative control (water). However, it was not as effective as the rinse consisting of an aqueous phase with chlorhexidine combined with an oily phase without triclosan. A two-phase mouthrinse with soya oil containing 0.3% triclosan was not superior to soya oil alone, and the combination of CHX and triclosan in a two-phase rinse was not as effective as 0.1% CHX alone in water. No beneficial effect on plaque inhibition could thus be found by using a two-phase system with two different antibacterial agents (one water soluble and one lipid soluble). Soya oil without triclosan rendered higher plaque inhibition than the control, presumably due to formation of a hydrophobic layer on the tooth surfaces.     

Plaque inhibition of two commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution is still "the leading oral antiseptic" for controlling gingivitis. Side effects, however, limit the acceptability to users and the long-term employment of a 0.2% CHX antiseptic in preventive dentistry. This stimulated the development of new formulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect on plaque inhibition and taste perception of two commercially available mouthrinses (0.12% CHX non-alcohol base with 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride (Cpc) versus 0.2% CHX alcohol base). METHODS: The study was designed as a single-blind, randomized two group parallel experiment, to compare two different commercially available mouthrinses, during a 3-day plaque accumulation model. Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received a thorough dental prophylaxis at the beginning of the test period. Over a 72-h experimental non-brushing period, during which subjects abstained from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene, one group (test) used a 15 ml alcohol free 0.12% CHX (=18 mg) mouthrinse on a Cpc base (Perioaid), CHX plus sign in circleCpc), twice daily for 30 s. The other group (control) used a 10 ml 0.2% CHX (=20 mg) mouthrinse on an 11.8% ethanol alcohol base (Corsodyl), CHX plus sign in circleAlc), twice daily for 60 s. After 72 h of plaque formation, the amount of plaque was evaluated. By the use of visual analogue scale, the subjects were asked for their appreciation of the taste of the mouthrinse they had used. RESULTS: The mean plaque index for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group was 0.97 and for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group 0.78. After 72 h of non-brushing, there was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two groups. The answers to the questions (taste perception and after-taste) showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for taste appreciation on a scale from very bad to very good taste (0-10) were 5.92 for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group and 4.10 for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group (p=0.02). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for the after-taste on a scale from very short to very long (0-10) were 7.24 for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group and 5.38 for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present study design, it can be concluded that rinsing with a 0.12% CHX mouthrinse on a non-alcohol base with 0.05% Cpc (Perio-Aid) is not significantly different from rinsing with a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse on an alcohol base (Corsodyl). It appears that the subjects appreciated the taste of the non-alcohol CHX solution better but the after-taste of the rinse remained longer in the mouth.