Comparative antiplaque activity of sanguinarine and chlorhexidine in man

This clinical investigation examined the effect of a sanguinarine extract on bacterial plaque growth in man. Three different mouthrinses were examined: (i) Veadent containing 0.03% sanguinarine and 0.2% zinc chloride (test rinse); (ii) a vehicle solution containing all the excipients of Veadent except the 0.03% sanguinarine (control rinse); (iii) Hibident a 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate formulation (positive control rinse). The trial in which 12 dental students participated, was designed as a single-blind, cross-over study. During 3 experimental periods of 18 days, the participants refrained from mechanical oral hygiene and rinsed twice a day with one of the above mentioned solutions. Between experimental phases, a wash-out period of 11 days was instituted. In each subject, 4 teeth were randomly selected for assessment. Clinical evaluations were performed at days 1 (0, 4, 8, 12 hours), 2, 4, 11 and 18. The plaque on the buccal surfaces of the selected teeth was disclosed with neutral red 0.05% and colour slides taken. The % of the tooth surface covered with plaque was calculated planimetrically from these colour slides. The present results show an excellent anti-plaque effect with Hibident, a very small effect with Veadent and a negligible effect with the vehicle solution without the sanguinarine. These findings would suggest that the Veadent mouthrinse would have at most only a limited role as a plaque inhibitor.     

Differences in efficacy of two commercial 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinse solutions: a 4-day plaque re-growth study

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this clinical cross-over study was to examine the antibacterial and plaque-inhibiting properties of two chlorhexidine solutions compared with a negative control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-one volunteers refrained from all oral hygiene measures, but rinsed instead twice daily with 10 ml of a conventional chlorhexidine solution (0.2%; CHX), a chlorhexidine solution with anti-discolouration system (ADS) (0.2%, alcohol-free chlorhexidine solution (CSP)) or a placebo solution (Pla). Plaque index (PI), plaque area (PA) and bacterial vitality were assessed after 24 h (PI1, vital flora (VF)1) and 96 h (PI2; VF2, PA). After a 10-day wash-out period, a new test cycle was started. RESULTS: Results for Pla were 0.94, 1.59, 27.4 (PI1, PI2, PA) and 79% and 72% (VF1 and VF2). CSP significantly reduced the parameter PI1, PI2 and PA to 0.67 (p=0.012), 1.0 and 15.7 (p<0.001). VF1 and VF2 (63% and 53%) were not significantly affected. The corresponding figures of CHX were 0.42, 0.43, 6.77, 33 and 16%, which were all significantly lower (all p<0.001). On comparing the two chlorhexidine solutions, CHX showed significantly higher reductions of all parameters. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the 0.2% alcohol-containing solution showed superiority in inhibiting plaque re-growth and reducing bacterial vitality compared with the solution with ADS.     

Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an essential oil mouthrinse: 6-month clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness and the side-effect profiles of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse and a chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and eight qualifying subjects, aged 20-57 years, were randomized into three groups: essential oil mouthrinse (ListerineAntiseptic); 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Peridex); or 5% hydroalcohol negative control. At baseline, subjects received a complete oral soft tissue examination and scoring of the Loe-Silness gingival index (GI), Quigley-Hein plaque index (PI), Volpe-Manhold calculus index (CI), and Lobene extrinsic tooth stain index (SI). Following a complete dental prophylaxis, subjects started rinsing twice daily with their respective mouthrinse as an adjunct to their usual mechanical oral hygiene procedures. One of the rinses on each weekday was supervised. Subjects were reexamined at 3 and 6 months. The treatment groups were compared with respect to baseline demographic and clinical variables. The primary efficacy variables were GI and PI. Intergroup differences for all clinical variables were tested at 3 and 6 months using appropriate statistical procedures. RESULTS: All of the 108 randomized subjects were evaluable at 3 months, and 107 subjects were evaluable at 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups at baseline, with the exception that the control group PI was significantly lower than that of the essential oil group (p<0.05) and the chlorhexidine group (p<0.001), and the essential oil mouthrinse group had a significantly greater number of subjects than the control group with body region SI scores > or =1.0 (p=0.021). At 6 months, the essential oil and chlorhexidine mouthrinses produced statistically significant (p<0.001) GI reductions of 14.0% and 18.2%, respectively, and statistically significant (p<0.001) PI reductions of 18.8% and 21.6%, respectively, compared with the control and were not statistically significantly different from each other with respect to plaque and gingivitis reduction. The chlorhexidine mouthrinse group had significantly more calculus and extrinsic tooth stain than either the essential oil mouthrinse group or the control group. CONCLUSION: This 6-month controlled clinical study demonstrated that the essential oil mouthrinse and the chlorhexidine mouthrinse had comparable antiplaque and antigingivitis activity. Insofar as side effects associated with the chlorhexidine mouthrinse may limit patient compliance, it is suggested that each product can have a distinct role in the management of patients with periodontal diseases.     

A comparison of cetylpyridinium chloride, triclosan and chlorhexidine mouthrinse formulations for effects on plaque regrowth

Abstract. A relatively small number of agents are used in mouthrinse products, although the possible variability in the final formulations is enormous. The aim of this study was to compare equal concentrations of 3 antimicrobial agents, in simple formulations, for plaque inhibition. This 4-day plaque regrowth study was a 5-cell, randomised, double blind cross-over design, involving 20 healthy human volunteers. The mouthrinse formulations were aqueous 0.05% solutions of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), chlorhexidine and triclosan, together with a 0.1% CPC and a minus active control rinse. On Day 1, from a zero plaque baseline, volunteers ceased normal oral hygiene and rinsed 2 × daily for 1 min. with 10-ml volumes of the allocated rinses. On Day 5, plaque was scored by index and area. All rinses produced lower mean plaque values compared to control, but unlike the CPC and chlorhexidine rinses, the differences with triclosan did not always reach significance. The CPC and chlorhexidine rinses were always significantly more effective than the triclosan rinse. The greatest plaque inhibition was with 0.1% CPC although rarely significantly greater than the 0.05% CPC and chlorhexidine rinses which were similar in efficacy. The results indicate that further studies on lower concentration chlorhexidine solutions are warranted.     

The anti-plaque efficacy of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse used in combination with toothbrushing with dentifrice

BACKGROUND: Although the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) chemically can be affected by the presence of a sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS)-containing dentifrice in the oral cavity, previous data, collected without supervision, showed that the level of plaque inhibition offered by a 0.2% CHX post-brushing rinse in one jaw is not reduced under the influence of toothbrushing with a 1.5% SLS-containing dentifrice in the opposite jaw. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate, during a 4-day supervised study period, the anti-plaque efficacy of a 0.2% CHX pre-brushing rinse in one jaw, under the influence of toothbrushing in the opposite jaw, either with a SLS-containing dentifrice or with a SLS-free dentifrice. Three different dentifrices were tested. Two of them contained SLS (Colgate Total & Aquafresh Natural Whitening), the other (Zendium) did not. METHODS: The study was an examiner blind, randomised 4-cell, crossover design. It used a 4-day plaque accumulation model to compare under supervision 4 different oral hygiene regimens with a washout period of at least one week. Thirty-five healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to a sequence according to a 4 x 4 Latin square design. At the beginning of each 4-day test period, they received a thorough dental prophylaxis. Plaque was scored in one randomly assigned (upper or lower) jaw, called the study jaw. At the end of the 4-day period the study jaw was used to study the effect of the four regimens on the level of plaque accumulation. The opposite jaw was assigned as the dentifrice jaw and served only to introduce the effect of brushing with a dentifrice in the study model. Four oral hygiene regimens were designed. During the randomly assigned test periods, rinsing with 0.2% CHX and then brushing the dentifrice jaw was performed twice daily. In regimen 1, 2, and 3 the subjects used a dentifrice in the assigned dentifrice jaw being either a dentifrice with SLS (Colgate Total and Aquafresh Natural Whitening) or a SLS-free dentifrice (Zendium). Regimen 4 served as a control during witch subjects only rinsed with 0.2% CHX. No other oral hygiene methods were allowed. After 4 days of undisturbed plaque accumulation, the amount of plaque was evaluated (Lobene et al. 1982, Quigley & Hein 1962, Turesky et al. 1970 modifications). RESULTS: The overall plaque index for regimen 1, 2 and 3 was, respectively, 1.8, 1.8 and 1.9. For regimen 4, the overall plaque index was 1.9. There was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the four regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Within the present study design, it can be concluded that the anti-plaque efficacy of a pre-brushing 0.2% CHX mouthrinse does not seem to be reduced under the influence of a normal toothbrushing exercise with a dentifrice after rinsing, whether the dentifrice contains SLS or not.     

Evaluation of a mouthrinse containing chlorhexidine and fluoride as an adjunct to oral hygiene

Abstract Chlorhexidine and fluoride have valuable preventive roles in dental and oral diseases. There is also evidence that in caries prevention, together, they provide additive benefits. However, combined chlorhexidine/fluoride formulations have rarely been evaluated. The aim of this study was to determine whehter a 0.12% chlorhexidine, 100 ppm F- mouthrinse provided adjunctive oral hygiene benefits compared to a minus active control rinse. The study was a randomised double-blind parallel design involving 102 subjects of whom 99 completed the 6 week experimental period. Subjects rinsed 2 × per day for 1 min with 15 ml of the allocated rinse. Normal toothbrushing procedures were maintained throughout the study. At 6 weeks, plaque and gingivitis scores were significantly lower and the incremental reduction significantly larger in the active rinse group. However, as expected, tooths mining was significantly increased with the active rinse. It is apparent that this chlorhexidine/fluoride rinse could be used in those regimens recommended for other chlorhexidine formulations. The value of the formulation in caries prevention would seem worthy of further investigation.     

Influence of a SLS-containing dentifrice on the anti-plaque efficacy of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse

Background: Chlorhexidine (CHX) and sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), the most widely used detergent in dentifrice, may counteract. Consequently, studies about this interaction suggested that care is required when combining both these compounds, even when they are introduced separately into the oral cavity. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of toothbrushing with a SLS-containing dentifrice in one jaw, on the plaque inhibition of a CHX mouthrinse in the opposite jaw during a 4-day study period. Methods: The study was an examiner-blind, randomised two-cell, crossover design. It used a 4-day plaque accumulation model to compare two different oral hygiene regimens with a washout period of 17 days. Sixteen healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received a thorough dental prophylaxis at the beginning of each 4-day test period. One jaw (upper or lower) was randomly assigned as the “study” jaw. The opposite jaw was assigned as the “dentifrice” jaw and served only to introduce the effect of brushing with a dentifrice in the study model. Two oral hygiene regimens were evaluated. During one randomly assigned test period, the “dentifrice” jaw was treated by toothbrushing with a 1.5% SLS-containing dentifrice and rinsed together with the “study” jaw with 0.2% CHX, thus forming regimen 1. As a control during the other test period, both the “dentifrice” jaw and “study” jaw were only rinsed with 0.2% CHX, forming regimen 2. No other oral hygiene methods were allowed. After 4 days of undisturbed plaque accumulation, the amount of plaque was evaluated ( Silness & Löe 1964 ). The “study” jaw was used to study the effect of the two regimens on the level of plaque accumulation at the end of the 4-day period. Results: The overall plaque index was 0.36 for regimen 1 and 0.34 for regimen 2. There was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two regimens. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study design, it can be concluded that ordinary brushing with a 1.5% SLS-containing dentifrice (Colgate Bi-Fluor), followed by rinsing with water does not appear to reduce the level of plaque inhibition offered by a post-brushing CHX rinse.     

The effect of two commercial antibacterial mouthrinses on plaque growth in vivo

An experimental study was designed to compare the claimed antibacterial effect of Betadine and Blend-a-med Fluid with the known plaque growth inhibiting effect of a 0.2% aqueous solution of chlorhexidine digluconate (Hibitane). Before the test perios for 5 days. During the following week they cleaned their teeth mechanically with toothbrush and toothpicks. For the third week the students were divided into three experimental groups. Following closely the manufacturers' recommendations, one group rinsed their mouths four times daily with 10 ml of Betadine, one group every 2 hours with a glassful of water containing 5-8 drops of Blend-a-med Fluid, and the control group twice daily with 10 ml of the 0.2% chlorhexidine solution. Mechanical cleaning of the teeth was not allowed during the experimental week. The Plaque Index scorings decreased significantly from the end of the no-hygiene to the end of the mechanical cleaning period. During the experimental period a further decrease of the mean P1I scores returned to the level recorded after the no-hygiene period. As neither Betadine nor Blend-a-med Fluid proved able to prevent plaque growth in vivo, there seems to be no indication for their use in treatment of gingivitis.     

A method to compare four mouthrinses: time to gingivitis level as the primary outcome variable

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The experimental gingivitis model is a well-established method in comparing the chemical antiplaque activity of agents and products. The aim of the present study was to use time in order to achieve an exit level of bleeding on probing (BOP) as the primary outcome variable. METHODS: The study was a single blind, randomised four treatment parallel group design employing 76 healthy volunteers. The cohort was accepted into the study proper if they achieved a level of /= 50% BOP. Using the baseline and exit BOP, MGI and plaque, a deterioration rate for each parameter was derived and used as the unit of analysis. RESULTS: There were highly significant treatment differences for all three parameters. Paired analyses revealed chlorhexidine was highly significantly more effective than the other rinses for all three parameters. CPC and triclosan were not different from the control for BOP, but CPC was significantly different from the control for MGI and plaque, and triclosan was different from the control for plaque. There were no differences between the CPC and triclosan rinses. CONCLUSIONS: The method achieved the expected result of differentiating between the chlorhexidine and the other rinses. Some modification of the method, primarily to group sizes, should improve specificity. The method has the considerable volunteer appeal of early exit, particularly when allocated to control or low activity treatments for plaque.     

Alcohol-free mouthrinse solutions to reduce supragingival plaque regrowth and vitality. A controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and antibacterial properties of alcohol-free mouthrinses, an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride mouthrinse (ASF) and two triclosan solutions in comparison with a chlorhexidine and a placebo rinse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised 5-cell cross-over 4-day plaque regrowth study, 19 volunteers rinsed 2 x a day with 15 ml of each of the distributed solutions. Each test cycle was followed by a 10 days wash-out period. On day 0 of each test week, volunteers received a dental prophylaxis. Thereafter they refrained from all mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the next four days. Plaque regrowth was assessed daily by the plaque index and on day 4 by calculating the plaque area with a computer program after disclosure and photography of the front teeth. The vitality of the plaque was examined on days 1 to 4 by the vital fluorescence technique. RESULTS: 19 participants completed the study. Compared to the placebo the ASF solution showed 15.7% (p>0.5), 30.6% (p<0.001), 40.5% (p<0.001) and 44.7% (p<0.001) reductions on the consecutive days 14 in plaque index and a reduction of 61.9% in plaque area. The decrease of vitality of supragingival plaque was highly significant compared to placebo on every test day ranging between 30.9% and 36.6%. A reduction in plaque index from 19.4% (p<0.01) on day 2, 34.9% (p<0.001) on day 3 and 40.4% (p<0.001) on day 4 concommitant with a reduction in plaque area of 48.9% (p<0.001) was noted for alcohol-free chlorhexidine. Concerning the vitality chlorhexidine reduced the percentage of vital bacteria significantly on every day (16.0% to 24.9%). The reductions in mean plaque index for the 0.15% triclosan solution during the test period were 6.3%, 22.4%, 24.6% and 36% and in plaque area 41.8%. Vitality was significantly reduced at every day compared to placebo. Plaque Index reduction with the 0.02% triclosan increased from 15.3% (day 2) to 31.0% (day 4) and a reduction of 23.6% was seen in plaque area. A significant effect concerning the vitality of the plaque was only found at the first and the last day of the test cycle. CONCLUSION: Alcohol-free mouthrinse solutions were shown to be effective in reducing both plaque accumulation and plaque biofilm vitality compared to a placebo solution.     

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.     

Quality-specific taste impairment following the application of chlorhexidine digluconate mouthrinses

Although chlorhexidine has been widely used in the prevention and treatment of gingivitis, its effects on taste sensation have not been well studied. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate taste alterations following regular applications of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses. 24 healthy and non-smoking clinical instructors, dental assistants and dental students were divided into 3 groups after having reached a status of clinical gingival health by 4 weeks of supervised oral hygiene procedures. Following this, they were asked to abolish all mechanical oral hygiene for a period of 14 days, during which time they rinsed twice daily with different mouthrinses. Group A rinsed with a 0.2% chlorhexidine solution, group B served as control and utilized a 0.001 molar solution of quinine hydrochloride as a placebo rinse. A second control group (C) rinsed with distilled water. At days -3 and -2, as well as at days 1, 2, 13 and 14 of the experimental period, and 1 and 2 days after cessation of the rinsing, taste sensitivity was evaluated by a magnitude estimation, suprathreshold scaling procedure for the 4 taste qualities--sweet, salty, sour and bitter. 6 different concentrations of each of sucrose, sodium chloride, citric acid and quinine hydrochloride were utilized. Magnitude estimations of the perceived intensities of each series of test solutions were calculated. The analysis of co-variance revealed significant differences at the short-term and treatment-related suprathreshold scaling responses between both control groups (B, C) and the test group (A) for the sodium chloride magnitude estimation function. However, no significant inter-group differences in the magnitude estimation function were found for the remaining taste qualities.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A 6-month home usage trial of a 1% chlorhexidine toothpaste

Abstract Research and development has been aimed towards the development of toothpastes for oral hygiene and gingival health benefits. The most effective antiplaque agent to date, chlorhexidine. is difficult to formulate into active toothpaste products. Despite some encouraging findings for experimental chlorhexidine toothpastes, there are to date no commercially available products. Based on positive findings from an experimental gingivitis study, this investigation evaluated 2 chlorhexidine toothpastes, one with fluoride, as adjuncts to oral hygiene. The study was a double–blind controlled, parallel, balanced group design, extending over 6 months. A total of 297 volunteers commenced the study after screening for a minimum acceptance level of gingivitis. At baseline, 6, 12 and 24 weeks, stain, gingival, bleeding and plaque indices were recorded, together with a calculus index at 6, 12 and 24 weeks. After a baseline prophylaxis, volunteers used the allocated product 2 × per day, with no other oral hygiene instructions given. Plaque, gingival and bleeding scores improved in all 3 groups, but to an overall significantly greater extent in the active groups. However, staining and calculus indices were significantly increased in the active compared to the control group. If the local side-effects of chlorhexidine are considered to be acceptable, these chlorhexidine toothpastes could be recommended for the same clinical applications as other chlorhexidine products. The apparent compatibility of fluoride with chlorhexidine in the one product may be pertinent to caries prevention.