Comparison of 2 commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that lowering the concentration of chlorhexidine (CHX) in mouthrinses from 0.2% to 0.12% does not adversely affect inhibition of plaque accumulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inhibition of plaque growth by 2 commercially available mouthrinses used according to the manufacturers' instructions, one with a 30-second and one with a 60-second rinsing time. METHODS: The clinical investigation was a single-blind, randomized study involving 80 volunteers (40 female, 40 male; mean age 25.7 years). At the start of the trial, all participants received a dental prophylaxis to remove all plaque deposits. Subjects refrained from all mechanical oral hygiene procedures, but rinsed twice a day with the allocated CHX mouthrinse over a period of 72 hours. The chlorhexidine preparations compared were a 0.12% concentration used at a 15 ml dose for a rinsing time of 30 seconds and a 0.2% concentration used at a dose of 10 ml for 60 seconds. After 72 hours, the plaque index (PI) from all volunteers was recorded at 6 sites per tooth. All participants received a questionnaire to evaluate their perception of the mouthrinses. RESULTS: After 72 hours, the 15 ml/30 second/0.12% CHX group had a mean whole mouth PI of 1.65 (SD 0.31) compared with a mean PI of 1.60 (SD 0.40) for the 10 ml/60 second/0.2% CHX group. The difference in plaque scores between the groups was not statistically significant. Results from the questionnaire showed no significant difference between the groups for taste perception, duration of taste, alteration in taste, or perceived plaque reduction; however, the panelists preferred the shorter rinsing time of 30 seconds and, for this parameter, the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this short-term study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between both commercially available CHX mouthrinses with respect to plaque inhibition, although both differed in concentration and rinsing time. The subject preference phase of the study indicated that the shorter rinsing time of 30 seconds was favored.     

Therapeutic effects of supervised chlorhexidine mouthrinses on untreated gingivitis

AIM: The aim of the present study was to test the presumptive therapeutic effect of chlorhexidine digluconate in a population with untreated gingivitis and presence of abundant calculus. SETTING AND STUDY DESIGN: Sixty subjects (? mean age of 23.4) were recruited from a knitting factory in the Province of Guangdong, People's Republic of China. By applying a double-blind clinical trial design the participants were divided into two groups (Test and Control) and matched according to their mean GI scores. The Test group (n= 20) was assigned to two daily mouth-rinses for 6 days per week using 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (Peridex®). The Control group (n= 40) rinsed twice daily with a placebo solution. All the rinsings were supervised and timed for 45 S. No attempt was made to influence the oral hygiene habits of the participantS. Prior to and after 3 months of the supervised rinsing, plaque was scored using the Plaque Index system (PIl), and gingivitis was assessed using the criteria of the Gingival Index system (GI).Calculus was scored according to the Calculus Surface Severity Index system (CSSI), and stain was also graded by the Discoloration Index system (DI). RESULTS: After 3 months, the Test group (n= 13) showed significant reduction in mean PIl, GI and percentage of gingivial bleeding (GB%), while significant increases in mean DI were observed. The improvement in gingival health was observed at all regions with marked reduction in mean GI (from GI = 1.40 to 1.08) and GB% reduction by 24–52%. The proportion of GI = 2 was also reduced significantly from 50-36%. The Control group (n= 23) also showed a decrease in mean PIl but significant increases in the mean GI and GB%. Intergroup comparison showed statistically significant differences between mean GI, percentage of gingival bleeding (GB%) and mean DI for the test and control groups after 3 months of supervised rinsing. However, there were no significant intergroup differences for mean PIl. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, there was a significant effect of chlorhexidine on gingivitis, although the effect may be too limited to assure prognostic benefits in the prevention of future disease progression.     

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)     

Comparative staining in vitro and plaque inhibitory properties in vivo of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses

Abstract. The mere incorporation of an active ingredient in an oral hygiene product does not necessarily guarantee efficacy. As new formulations appear, it would seem prudent to at least screen for activity by comparison with an established product. The aim of this study was to compare a new 0.12% chlorhexidine containing rinse with a well researched 0.2% chlorhexidine rinse product. The rinses were firstly compared in vitro for dietary staining effects and in vivo for plaque inhibition. Both formulations in vitro produced progressive staining of acrylic specimens with increasing passages through a standard tea solution. The clinical investigation was a 3-treatment, randomised, double blind, crossover, 4-day plaque regrowth study, balanced for 1st and 2nd order residual effects and involving 24 volunteers. From a zero plaque baseline, volunteers suspended oral hygiene and rinsed 2×per day with the allocated rinse. The chlorhexidine doses were 18 mg and 20 mg per rinse for the 0.12% and 0.2% formulations, respectively. Plaque was scored by area and index on day 5. The results showed that the 2 chlorhexidine rinses were similar in efficacy by comparison with the control rinse. These studies in vitro and in vivo indicate that the chlorhexidine in the new preparation is available and active and the product could find use in those preventive applications suggested for other chlorhexidine formulations.     

Plaque bacteria counts and vitality during chlorhexidine, Meridol and Listerine mouthrinses

The aim of this double-blind study was to enumerate the total number of living and dead bacteria on defined tooth areas during the application of antibacterial mouthrinses. After prophylaxis, 40 students refrained from all oral hygiene measures for 3 d, during which they rinsed with a phenolic compound (Listerine), an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride solution (Meridol), 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) or a control solution (0.02% quinine-hydrochloride). The plaque index (PII) was recorded at the start and the end of the investigation. Total bacterial counts (BC) and colony-forming units (CPU) of 1d-, 2d- and 3d-old dentogingival plaque were determined. The plating efficiency (PE) was calculated as a percentage of CFU/BC and the portion of vital microflora estimated by a vital fluorescence technique (VF). All groups started with a P1I approximating 0.1. On day 3, the P1J values were 1.21 in the control group and 0.51, 0.37 and 0.14 after Listerine, Meridol and CHX use, respectively. A tremendous variation existed between the numbers of viable bacteria found per mm- on the enamel surface on day 3 (CHX: 0.2: Meridol: 300; Listerine: 6×10⁴; control: 2×10⁶). while higher total numbers of bacteria were concomitantly present (CHX and Meridol: 1–2×10⁴; Listerine: 2×10⁵: control: 2×10⁶). Both vitality parameters PE and VF reached 92% in the control group at day 3, but only 7% after CHX use. With Meridol and Listerine, the corresponding PE values were 3% and 43%, respectively, while the VF values reached 48% and 54%. The P1I, BC, CFU and PE values of the CHX and the Meridol groups differed significantly from those of the control group. In contrast, Listerine showed no difference as compared to the control rinse. Due to the strong antibacterial action of CHX and Meridol during their use, almost only dead or non-proliferating bacteria were found on the tooth surfaces. Thus, only a thin plaque could develop. As a clinical consequence, both substances showed retardation of plaque development as reflected by significantly reduced plaque indices.     

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 comparative effects on plaque regrowth of phenolic chlorhexidine and anti-adhesive mouthrinses

Abstract The inhibition of bacterial attachment to the tooth surface is one possible approach to plaque control. This study evaluated in vivo the plaque inhibitory action of a novel copolymer reported to have considerable antiadhesive properties in vitro. The study was a single blind. 5-treatment. randomised Latin square crossover design, incorporating balance for carry-over effects. The rinses were the antiadhesive (1%), the antiadhesive with 0.02% chlorhexidine, a 0.2% chlorhexidine rinse product, an essential oil/phenolic rinse product and water. 15 volunteers participated and on day 1 of each study period were rendered plaque-free, ceased toothcleaning and rinsed 2x daily. under supervision, with the allocated formulation. On day 5, plaque was scored by index and area. Washout periods were 21/2 days. Alone or combined with chlorhexidine, the antiadhesive agent showed no effects greater than water. The chlorhexidine rinse was significantly more effective than the essential oil/phenolic rinse which in turn was significantly more effective than the other rinses.     

Clinical study to compare the effect of stannous fluoride and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on plaque formation

Abstract A clinical study was conducted on four adults to compare the relative efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate and 0.1 % stannous fluoride (SnF₂). Using a crossover experimental design, subjects rinsed twice daily for 5 days with SnF₂ and then, after a 2-day interim recovery period, for 5 days with chlorhexidine. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in the relative efficacy of the two agents were found. Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing Gingival and Plaque Indices, plaque wet weight and bacterial Colony Forming Units, calculated both per subject and per group.     

The effect of a commercially available triclosan-containing toothpaste compared to a sodium-fluoride-containing toothpaste and a chlorhexidine rinse on 4-day plaque regrowth

Abstract Many compounds could be added to toothpaste to assist plaque inhibition, but ionic interactions can cause formulation difficulties. Moreover, the actual chemical action of a plaque inhibitory agent added to a toothpaste is difficult to assess when the product is used in the conventional manner, i.e., in addition to toothbrushing. The non-ionic antimicrobial triclosan has been incorporated in toothpastes and shown to have variable plaque inhibitory activity both alone and in conjunction with certain polymers or metal ions. Little is known of the efficacy of triclosan toothpastes compared to conventional fluoride toothpastes. The aim of this study was to compare a commercially available toothpaste containing 0.3% triclosan/co-polymer with a sodium fluoride toothpaste for chemical plaque inhibitory effects over a 4-day period. The study was designed to stratify the relative efficacy plaque inhibitory action of the products, comparisons were made with a positive control, chlorhexidine rinse and a negative control, saline. The study design was a randomised single blind crossover design balanced for first-order carryover. A total of 18 healthy, dentate volunteers participated in the study. On day i of each period the volunteers suspended toothcleaning and rinsed 2 X daily with the allocated mouthrinse or toothpaste slurry. On day 5 , the plaque on the teeth was disclosed and scored by index and area. Increasing plaque scores were in the order chlorhexidine, triclosan toothpaste, fluoride toothpaste, and saline. Chlorhexidine was significantly more effective than all the other agents tested, and both toothpaste preparations were significantly better than the saline rinse. There was no significant difference between the two toothpaste rinses. Consistent with other studies the triclosan toothpaste offers only moderate plaque inhibitory properties when compared to a conventional toothpaste.     

Microbiological and clinical effects of chlorhexidine digluconate and hydrogen peroxide mouthrinses on developing plaque and gingivitis

While the ability of chlorhexidine (CHX) to prevent plaque formation and inhibit the development of gingivitis has been well documented in the literature, the therapeutic value of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in preventing gingivitis is in dispute. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and microbiological effects of an established therapeutic agent, such as chlorhexidine with that of H2O2 in the experimental gingivitis model. Following a period of stringent oral hygiene, 32 subjects were allocated to 1 of 3 treatment groups which were balanced on the basis of their pre-experimental gingivitis scores. The subjects then refrained from any oral hygiene for 21 days. During this period, they rinsed twice a day with either a placebo, 0.12% CHX, or a 1% H2O2 mouthrinse. After 21 days, supragingival and marginal plaque was collected from each subject and assayed for total cultivable microbiota, total facultative anaerobes, facultative Streptococci, Actinomyces, Fusobacterium, Veillonella and Capnocytophaga. At the end of the experimental period, the group rinsing with 0.12% CHX showed 95% reduction in gingivitis incidence, 100% reduction in bleeding sites, and 80% reduction in plaque scores compared to the group rinsing with placebo. Conversely, the group using 1% H2O2 showed a marginal reduction in gingivitis incidence of 15% and a 28% reduction in bleeding sites compared to the placebo group, but no significant reduction in plaque scores. The microbiological results showed that 0.12% CHX was an excellent broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent which significantly reduced the number of both facultative and obligate anaerobes in plaque.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

The mechanism of action of chlorhexidine

Controversy exists concerning the mode of action of chlorhexidine in plaque inhibition. This study attempted to determine whether an oral reservoir of chlorhexidine was necessary for plaque inhibition. Plaque growth on enamel under the influence of topically applied or rinsed chlorhexidine was closely monitored by clinical scoring, bacterial culturing and scanning electron microscopy. Thus, 3 subjects wore removable acrylic appliances containing enamel inserts. In the first regimen, inserts on one side of the appliances were exposed to 0.2% chlorhexidine and on the other, water for 1 min twice a day for 14 days. In the second regimen, subjects rinsed with 0.2% chlorhexidine for 1 min twice a day for 14 days with the appliances in situ. Results demonstrated that plaque growth assessed by the 3 study methods was very small on chlorhexidine-treated inserts by comparison with water-treated specimens. Importantly, inserts treated with chlorhexidine topically or by rinsing could not be distinguished by any method of evaluation. It is concluded that chlorhexidine achieves plaque inhibition as a result of an immediate bactericidal action during the time of application and a prolonged bacteriostatic action as a result of adsorption to the pellicle coated enamel surface. Consistent with other clinical studies, it is apparent that a progressively desorbing oral reservoir of antiseptic is not the mechanism by which chlorhexidine achieves plaque inhibition on teeth.     

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 comparison of the plaque-inhibitory properties of stannous fluoride and low-concentration chlorhexidine mouthrinses

BACKGROUND: Plaque inhibition by chlorhexidine (CHX) rinses is dose related with a relatively flat dose-response curve above 5-6 mg twice daily. Low dose regimens could therefore reduce local side effects but maintain reasonable efficacy. AIMS: To compare the plaque inhibitory properties of two low-dose CHX rinse products with more conventional levels delivered from proprietary rinses. A secondary outcome was a comparison with a stannous fluoride/amine fluoride (SFAF) rinse product. METHODS: The study was a five-treatments, negative controlled, randomised, single blind crossover design balanced for residual effects, involving 20 healthy subjects in a 24-h plaque re-growth model. On day 1 of each study period, subjects were rendered plaque free, suspended tooth cleaning and followed the appropriate rinse regimen. On day 2, subjects were scored for plaque by index and area. The rinse codes and rinsing regimens were: (A) 15 mg CHX 2 x daily for 30 s (0.1% CHX), (B) 9 mg CHX 2 x daily for 60 s (0.06% CHX), (C) 10 ml SFAF rinse 1 x daily for 30 s, (D) 15 ml placebo 2 x daily for 60 s, and (E) 6 mg CHX 2 x daily for 30 s (0.06% CHX). RESULTS: Average mouth plaque indices and areas were highly significantly different between rinsing regimens. All test rinses were significantly more effective than the placebo rinse. There was a mean dose-response pattern for the CHX rinses, but there were no statistically significant differences between any of the test rinses. CONCLUSIONS: Lower doses of chlorhexidine in rinses can be used to exert plaque inhibition comparable with products used at higher doses and equivalent to benchmark products such as the SFAF rinse. However, the availability of chlorhexidine from formulations has to be considered as in part explaining the results.     

An in vitro antimicrobial comparison of miswak extract with commercially available non-alcohol mouthrinses

The aim of this study was to assess the antimicrobial activity of eight commercially available mouthrinses and 50% miswak extract against seven microorganisms. Corsodyl, Alprox, Oral-B advantage, Florosept, Sensodyne, Aquafresh Mint, Betadine and Emoform mouthrinses were used while 50% aqueous extract of miswak (Salvadora persica) was used against Streptococcus faecalis, Streptococcus pyogenis, Streptococcus mutans, Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. The ditch plate method was used to test the antimicrobial activity. Inhibition zones of microorganisms around ditches were measured in millimetres. Range, mean and standard deviations were used for comparison of antimicrobial activity. Mouthrinses containing chlorhexidine was with maximum antibacterial activity, while cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinses were with moderate and miswak extract was with low antibacterial activity. Further research is needed for the substantivity of these mouthrinses and further in vivo/in vitro studies are needed using Biofilm model to substantiate present findings. Dental professionals must exercise caution and provide guidance in assisting their patients in making informed choices regarding their use of mouthrinses for clinical efficacy.     

Physicochemical properties of commercially available mouthrinses

This study evaluated physicochemical properties of eight commercially available mouthrinses, namely surface tension, in vivo enamel contact angle, viscosity, penetration coefficient, acidity and buffer capacity. The penetration coefficient, determined by the surface tension, contact angle and viscosity, is a measure of the ability of a liquid to penetrate into a capillary space, such as interproximal regions, gingival pockets and pores. The acidity is often determined by a compromise of the requirements for taste, enamel remineralization and stability of the solution. Among the eight mouthrinses evaluated, the physicochemical properties differed greatly, in particular, the penetration coefficient which varied by a factor of 1.8 over the products tested. Surprisingly several of the products tested were found to be extremely acidic.     

The effect of oxidising mouthrinses compared with chlorhexidine on salivary bacterial counts and plaque regrowth

Abstract For various clinical indications, oxidising agents have been used in dentistry for many years. Little is known, however, of their antibacterial activity and their ability to inhibit plaque formation. In this study, 2 mouthrinses containing peroxyborate (Bocasan) and peroxycarbonate (Kavosan) were compared alongside a negative control saline rinse and a positive control chlorhexidine rinse (Corsodyl) for their ability to inhibit plaque reformation. Employing a randomised four replicate 4x4 latin square cross over design and, whilst omitting all other oral hygiene, plaque was measured by area and index after rinsing for 4 days. In a second study, in vivo antibacterial effects of the rinses were assessed by measuring salivary bacterial counts following single rinses with the preparations at various time intervals over 7 h, Plaque inhibition by chlorhexidine was significantly greater than the other rinses. All rinses were significantly better than the saline rinse at inhibiting plaque. For plaque area, the peroxycarbonate rinse was significantly better than the peroxyborate rinse at inhibiting plaque. Salivary bacterial count reductions were significantly greater compared to saline with chlorhexidine at all time intervals up to 7 h. Whilst both peroxyborate and peroxycarbonate rinses produced greater reductions in bacterial counts than saline up to 3 h, at no time interval were the differences significant. The findings of these studies would suggest oxidising mouthrinses may inhibit plaque formation not by a direct antibacterial effect, but by some other mechanism. The magnitude of plaque reductions obtained with the peroxyborate and more so peroxycarbonate rinses would suggst a need for further study of these preparations when used as adjuncts to normal toothbrushing.     

Three different rinsing times and inhibition of plaque accumulation with chlorhexidine

AIM: This study assessed the plaque inhibiting effect of a 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution (Corsodyl) with three different rinsing times following a 72 h non-brushing period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical investigation was a single-blind, randomised study involving 90 volunteer students (40 male and 50 female, mean age 23.2 years). Subjects were randomly allocated to one of three groups for which the protocol only differed with respect to the duration of rinsing. At the start of the trial, all participants received a dental prophylaxis to remove all plaque deposits. Subjects refrained from all mechanical oral hygiene procedures, but rinsed two times per day for the allocated duration with CHX mouth rinse over a period of 72 h. The chlorhexidine preparation was of 0.2% concentration used at a dose of 10 ml for either 15, 30 or 60 s. After 72 h, the Quigley & Hein plaque index (PI) from all volunteers was recorded at six sites per tooth. All participants received a questionnaire to evaluate their perception of rinsing duration. RESULTS: After 72 h, the mean whole-mouth PI was 1.33, 1.18 and 1.24, respectively, for the 15, 30 and 60 s rinsing group. The difference in plaque scores between the three groups was not statistically significant. Results from the questionnaire showed a significant difference between the groups for their perception of rinsing duration. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was observed in the level of plaque after 72 h of non-brushing whether the subjects rinsed for 15, 30 or 60 s with 0.2% chlorhexidine.     

Effect of two new chlorhexidine mouthrinses on the development of dental plaque, gingivitis, and discolouration. A randomized, investigator-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-week experimental gingivitis study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this experimental gingivitis study was to assess the efficacy and safety of two new chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety volunteers participated in this investigator-blind, randomized, clinical-controlled trial in parallel groups. During the treatment period, no oral hygiene measures except rinsing with non-alcoholic 0.2% CHX or 0.2% CHX/0.055% sodium fluoride mouthrinses, a positive control, or a negative control were permitted. The primary parameter was the gingival index; the secondary parameters were plaque index, discolouration index, and bleeding on probing. Clinical examinations were conducted 14 days before the start of the study, at baseline, and after 7, 14, and 21 days. The two sample t-test, anova, and ancova were used for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: No difference in efficacy was found between the two new CHX formulations and the positive control. On day 21, statistically significantly less gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation compared with placebo were observed. Besides discolouration and taste irritations, no adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSION: The two new CHX mouthrinses were able to inhibit plaque re-growth and gingivitis. Neither the omission of alcohol nor the supplementation with sodium fluoride had weakened the clinical efficacy of CHX with respect to the analysed clinical parameters.     

Efficacy of Listerine®, Meridol® and chlorhexidine mouthrinses as supplements to regular tooth-cleaning measures

The anti-plaque, anti-gingivitis and anti-microbial efficacies of a phenolic compound (Listerine) and 2 different amine/stannous fluoride mouthwashes (Meridol I, II) were compared when these solutions were used in addition to usual tooth cleaning. A placebo preparation was utilized as a negative control and a chlorhexidine solution as a positive control in this double-blind study. After professional tooth cleaning, 49 volunteers continued their habitual, self-performed and non-supervised oral hygiene for a period of 2 weeks, in order to have a more standard baseline. At day 0, they began to rinse twice daily with 1 of the 5 mouthwashes. After 3 weeks of rinsing, plaque indices remained the lowest in the chlorhexidine and the Meridol I groups, while subjects using Listerine or Meridol II demonstrated similar indices significantly lower than that of individuals rinsing with the placebo solution. Through this period, the gingival index scores were similar in the Meridol, Listerine and chlorhexidine groups. At day 21, the mean GI scores in the chlorhexidine group were significantly lower than the scores in the placebo group. The plaque vitality scores showed a bacterial effect in vivo of chlorhexidine and, to a lesser extent, of the Meridol solutions. No substantial evidence of an antibacterial effect in vivo was found for Listerine. This study has demonstrated that when mouthrinses are used to supplement habitual mechanical oral hygiene, chlorhexidine remains the most powerful solution. Furthermore, it was also shown that a combination of habitual self-performed and non-supervised oral hygiene with Meridol or Listerine is more beneficial for plaque control than the use of mechanical oral hygiene alone.     

Effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinses on concentration of IgA in expectorates

Abstract – Secretary IgA is usually found in high concentrations in the mucin layer of the oral mucosa. Chlorhexidine (CH) has been shown to precipitate mucin and may thus, reduce the amount of IgA available in the oral cavity. Two human experiments were performed using single radial immunodiffusion (SRID) for quantitation of IgA in expectorates after mouth rinses. CH rnouthrinses eluted significantly more IgA from the oral cavity than did water. However, regular CH rinses for I week did not seem to reduce significantly the amount of IgA that could be extracted by water or CH. The present study did not support the suggestion that CH mouthrirases may reduce the IgA dependent defence mechanisms in the oral cavity.