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.     

A 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride/0.05% chlorhexidine mouth rinse during maintenance phase after initial periodontal therapy

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth rinse/spray can still be considered the gold standard in the chemical prevention of plaque formation and development of gingivitis. The product unfortunately has some side effects, such as extrinsic tooth staining, poor taste, taste disturbance, sensitivity changes in tongue, pain and irritation because of the alcohol content. These side effects led to the search of new formulations. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, long-term, parallel study, 48 moderate periodontitis patients rinsed for 6 months (starting immediately after a "one-stage, full-mouth" disinfection) with one of the following products: CHX 0.2%+alcohol (Corsodyl), CHX 0.05%+ cetyl pyridinium chloride (CPC) 0.05% and no alcohol (Perio-Aid Maintenance, a new formulation), or the placebo of the latter. After 1, 3 and 6 months a series of clinical and microbiological parameters were recorded for the supra- and subgingival area as well as for saliva. RESULTS: Although there was a significant treatment impact (mechanical debridement) in all groups, both CHX solutions further decreased both plaque and gingivitis indices (p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively), when compared with placebo. This was also reflected by additional reductions in the number of CFU/ml of aerobic and especially anaerobic species and by a suppression of Streptococcus mutans (versus an overgrowth for the placebo), in all niches. Differences between both CHX solutions were never encountered. The subjective ratings were slightly in favour of the new CHX-CPC formulation when compared with the other CHX-alcohol formulation, especially for taste of the product (p<0.05), but less impressive for the staining of teeth and tongue. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated the potential of a new CHX 0.05%+CPC 0.05% non-alcoholic formulation as an effective antiplaque agent for long-term use with reduced 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.     

Effect of various chlorhexidine regimens on salivary bacteria and de novo plaque formation

AIM: The aim of the present experiment was to study the effect of different chlorhexidine regimens on the number of bacteria in saliva, and on de novo plaque formation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten subjects with gingivitis, but no signs of destructive periodontitis, were recruited. Following a screening examination, the volunteers were given oral hygiene instruction, meticulous scaling and professional mechanical tooth cleaning (PTC). The PTC was repeated once every 3 days during a 2-week period to establish healthy gingival conditions. The study was designed as a double-blind cross-over clinical trial including three phases. Each experimental phase comprised one preparatory period of 7 days and one plaque accumulation period (no oral hygiene measures) of 4 days. During all preparatory periods, the volunteers (i) performed mechanical tooth cleaning using a toothbrush and dentifrice and (ii) were, in addition, given two sessions of PTC. The final PTC was delivered after bacterial sampling had been made on Day 0. Preparatory period A: the participants continued the self-performed plaque control regimen that employed only mechanical means. Preparatory period B: the participants were in addition instructed to rinse and gargle, twice daily, with a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinse. Preparatory period C: in addition to the above, the participants were instructed to brush the dorsum of the tongue for 60 s, twice daily, with a 1.0% chlorhexidine gel. Following each plaque accumulation period, there was a 10-day washout interval. The presence and amount of dental plaque (QHI) was scored after 1, 2 and 4 days of no oral hygiene. Samples of saliva were obtained on Day 0 and after 1 and 2 days. The samples were placed on Brucella agar plates and incubated (anaerobically) for 5 days. The total number of colony-forming units was determined and used to estimate the density of bacteria in saliva. RESULTS: In period A, the mean QHI increased from 1.0 (Day 1) to 1.4 (Day 2) and 2.1 (Day 4). The corresponding scores for periods B and C were 0.5, 0.8, 1.6 and 0.3, 0.8, 1.2, respectively. At all re-examination intervals more plaque formed during period A than during periods B and C. Further, during period C, less plaque formed than that during period B. Saliva samples from Day 0 in period A contained a larger number of TVC than the baseline samples in periods B and C. There was no significant difference in TVC among the groups on Day 2. CONCLUSION: The daily use of chlorhexidine as an adjunct to mechanical tooth cleaning markedly reduced the number of microorganisms that could be detected in saliva. The number of salivary bacteria may have influenced the amount of plaque that formed during an early phase of no oral hygiene.     

The effects of antimicrobial mouthrinses on de novo plaque formation at sites with healthy and inflamed gingivae

Abstract The objective of the present investigation was to evaluate to what extent mouthrinses containing triclosan and chlorhexidine may modify the amount of de novo plaque that forms on tooth surfaces adjacent to healthy and inflamed gingival units. 10 volunteers were recruited. On day 0, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) was obtained at predetermined sites and gingivitis (GI) was assessed. A careful oral profylaxis was given to each of the volunteers who subsequently abstained from all mechanical plaque control measures for the following 18 days. During the first 4 days (rinse phase I), they rinsed with either 0.12% chlorhexidine. 0.06% triclosan or placebo solution. Clinical examinations (GCF, GI) were repeated and the amount of plaque formed determined on days 4, 7 and 14. On day 14, the participants received a new professional tooth cleaning after which rinse phase II was initiated. During this 2nd phase, the participants rinsed for 4 days with the same mouthwash preparation and in the same manner as during rinse phase I. The examinations were repeated on day 18. Each participant received a comprehensive oral prophylaxisis and was instructed to perform meticulous mechanical plaque control during the following 4 weeks. A 2nd experimental period was then initiated. A total of 3 experimental periods were repeated until all subjects had rinsed with the 3 different mouthwash preparations. The results demonstrated (i) that significantly more plaque formed at sites with gingivitis than at surfaces adjacent to healthy gingival units and (ii) pre-existing gingivitis significantly increased the amount of de novo plaque that formed in subjects who rinsed with mouthwash preparations containing chlorhexidine and triclosan.     

A model for studying the effects of mouthrinses on de novo plaque formation.

The aim of the present study was to describe a 4-day no oral hygiene model to assess the pattern of de novo plaque formation and to use this model to appraise the potential of some mouthwash preparations to retard or inhibit plaque formation in the human dentition. 10 subjects were recruited for the trial. During a preparatory period, the participants were exposed to repeated professional plaque control and given oral hygiene instruction to eliminate signs of gingivitis. At the end of the preparatory period, each participant received a final professional tooth cleaning and was subsequently told to abstain from mechanical plaque control efforts for the next 4 days. They were asked to rinse twice daily for 60 s with 10 ml varying test solutions. On Day 4, the volunteers were exposed to a new clinical examination and the presence and amount of plaque were examined by the use of the plaque index system (P1I). The participants were subsequently given a professional tooth cleaning and asked to exercise proper self performed plaque control during the next 10 days. A new test period was then initiated. 6 different mouthwash preparations were tested in each subject namely, (1) placebo (a negative control rinse), (2) Veadent mouthrinse, (3) Listerine mouthrinse, (4) 0.06% triclosan + polyvinyl phosphonic acid (PVPA), (5) 0.06% triclosan + phenolic flavor and (6) 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (a positive control rinse). The results from the study revealed that the mean P1I values for individuals, groups of teeth and tooth surfaces provide an adequate but gross overall estimation of the potential of a given mouthrinse to retard/inhibit plaque build up. More detailed information on the effects of the test rinses could be obtained by data describing the % distribution of different P1I score categories; a high frequency of score 0 describes the potential of a mouthrinse to maintain tooth surfaces free from plaque while a low frequency of score 2/3 describes the ability of a treatment to retard/prevent gross plaque formation. The plaque pattern displays finally allowed assessment of the magnitude of plaque prevention, in comparison to the positive and negative controls, that could be achieved by a given compound in various parts and surfaces of the dentition. In this model, all test rinses (i) were significantly more effective than the placebo rinse in retarding de novo plaque build up and (ii) had a minor effects on plaque build up in the maxillary molars and at the approximal surfaces.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effect of chlorhexidine on acidogenicity of dental plaque in vivo

Abstract— In order to evaluate the effect of chlorhexidine on the acidogenicity of dental plaque, pH changes in plaque were measured in situ after sucrose applications. The results showed that a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinse inhibited acid production for a period of 24 h, whereas a 0.05% chlorhexidine rinse showed an inhibitory effect for 4 h. It is suggested that the mechanism involved may be related to the retention of chlorhexidine in the mouth and in plaque providing a bacteriostatic milieu which may be of importance in the observed long-term effect.     

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)     

Effect of chlorhexidine on dental plaque and gingivitis in mentally retarded children

ABSTRACT The purpose of the investigation was to determine the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinses as a supplement to toothbrushing in the plaque control of mentally retarded children. Fifty-four mentally subnormal children 7–14 years of age took part in the investigation. During the first period, half of the children rinsed their mouths with 0.2 % chlorhexidine gluconate solution twice a day. The rest of the children used a placebo mouth-rinse. After an 8-week interval a “cross-over” experiment was carried out during which a 0.1 % chlorhexidine solution was used. Plaque and gingival indices were scored at the beginning of each period, after 3 weeks, and at the termination after 6 weeks. The results revealed that mouthrinses with 0.1 % as well as 0.2 % chlorhexidine gluconate reduced plaque and gingivitis in mentally retarded children. The results were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for both concentrations. Furthermore, the investigation confirmed the occurrence of certain side effects such as discoloration of teeth and tongues.     

A comparison of natural product, triclosan and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on 4-day plaque regrowth

There is a continuing search for ingredients to enhance the chemical plaque inhibitory action of oral hygiene products. Sanguinarine, other natural extracts and triclosan have already been used in products. The aim of this study was to evaluate a number of triclosan and natural product rinses for effects on plaque regrowth. In particular, the influence of other rinse components were assessed, notably sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) and zinc. The study was a randomised, blind, 9-cell cross-over design to measure the effects of each rinse on 4-day plaque regrowth from a zero baseline. 15 volunteers rinsed 2x daily with each product and plaque was recorded by area and score. The 0.2% chlorhexidine rinse (positive control) was significantly more effective, and the saline rinse (negative control) significantly less effective, than other rinses. Sanguinarine alone was little different from saline and the addition of zinc made a modest improvement in activity. The 3 triclosan/SLS rinses were more effective than the sanguinarine rinses but similar to their minus triclosan control rinse. A natural product/SLS experimental rinse was second to chlorhexidine and, in many analyses, significantly better than all other rinses, but caused some oral erosions. The results indicate that the plaque inhibitory properties of basic ingredients such as SLS may be difficult to enhance or surpass. However, the possible range of recipes, particularly using natural ingredients, provides scope for research and development in the field of oral hygiene products.     

The efficacy of amine fluoride/stannous fluoride in the suppression of morning breath odour

BACKGROUND: Breath odour is a complaint encountered worldwide, often linked to microbial overload in the oral cavity. This double blind, crossover, randomised study assessed the efficacy of several antiseptic mouthrinses or slurry vs. a control solution in the prevention of morning bad breath during an experimental period of 7 days without mechanical plaque control. Methods: Sixteen dental students with a healthy periodontium abolished, after a thorough professional cleaning, all means of mechanical plaque control during five experimental periods of 7 days, interleaved by washout periods of at least 3 weeks. During each experimental period, as the only oral hygiene measure, the students rinsed twice a day with one of the following formulations (in a randomised order): a 0.2% chlorhexidine-alcohol mouthrinse (CHX-Alc), a 0.05% CHX + 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride + 0.14% zinc lactate mouthrinse (CHX-CPC-Zn), an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (125 ppm F-/125 ppm F-) containing mouthrinse (AmF/SnF2Mr), a slurry of a tooth paste (AmF/SnF2Sl) containing amine fluoride (350 ppm F-) and stannous fluoride (1050 ppm F-) and a placebo solution (placebo). At days 0, 3 and 7, morning breath was scored via VSC level measurements of the mouth air, and organoleptic ratings of the mouth air and tongue coating. At the same visits both the degree of gingival inflammation and the de novo plaque formation were rated. At the end of each period a questionnaire for subjective ratings was completed and microbiological samples were taken from the tongue dorsum, the saliva and the supragingival plaque for anaerobic and aerobic culturing. Results: Although oral hygiene during the experimental periods was limited to rinsing, bad breath parameters systematically improved (P < 0.001) with the three mouthrinses (CHX-Alc, CHX-CPC-Zn, AmF/SnF2Mr), with a superiority of the CHX-CPC-Zn solution when only VSC values were considered (P < 0.003). The AmF/SnF2 slurry and the placebo solution showed only minor changes with time. The three mouthrinses reduced significantly (P < 0.001) the bacterial load (aerobic & anaerobic) in the saliva (>or= 0.5 log reduction with a superiority (P < 0.005) for the CHX-Alc when compared to the two others). Changes in the bacterial load on the tongue dorsum could only be detected for the CHX-Alc solution (0.5 log). The antibacterial effect of the placebo solution and the slurry were negligible. The composition of microflora on the other hand did not reveal significant changes. The de novo supragingival plaque formation was significantly (P < 0.05) inhibited by the three mouthrinses with a slight superiority for the CHX-Alc solution. The degree of gingival inflammation at day 7 remained low (< 0.16) for all products. The CHX-Alc solution scored significantly worse for the subjective evaluation (questionnaires) concerning taste and sensitivity of tongue). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that morning breath odour can be successfully reduced by the sole twice daily use of CHX-Alc, CHX-CPC-Zn or AmF/SnF2Mr mouthrinses, which all significantly reduced the bacterial load in the saliva and retarded the de novo plaque formation.     

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.     

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)     

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.     

The comparative effect of acidified sodium chlorite and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on plaque regrowth and salivary bacterial counts

Abstract Acidified sodium chlorite (ASCI is recognised as a highly potent, broad spectrum antimicrobial system that has been successfully developed for uses in veterinary, food processing and medical device fields. The current studies aimed to investigate the persistence of antimicrobial action and plaque inhibitory properties of 3 ASC mouthrinses by comparison with positive control, chlorhexidine 0.12%, and placebo control, water, rinses. Both studies were randomised, double-blind, cross-over 5-cell designs balanced for carryover. The 1st study involved 15 healthy subjects who immediately before and at 30, 60, 180, 300 and 420 min after rinsing provided 2 ml saliva samples. The samples were immediately processed for total anaerobic bacterial counts recorded after 96 h incubation. Washout periods were a minimum of 3 days. The second study involved 20 healthy subjects who on day 1 of each study were rendered plaque free, suspended normal oral hygiene methods and commenced rinsing twice daily with the allocated rinse. On day 5, plaque was scored by index and area after disclosing with erythrosin. Washout periods were 2 1/2 days. The 3 ASC and chlorhexidine rinses produced similar reductions in salivary bacterial counts which remained significantly below the placebo control to 7 h. There were no significant differences between ASC and chlorhexidine rinses except at 30 and 60 min when significantly greater reductions were produced by 2 ASC rinses compared to the chlorhexidine rinse. Plaque indices and areas were considerably and significantly lower with the ASC and chlorhexidine rinses compared to the placebo rinse. There were no significant differences between plaque scores for the 3 ASC rinses and the chlorhexidine rinse, although for 2 ASC rinses plaque scores were lower than for the chlorhexidine rinse. The results indicate that the 3 ASC rinses have equivalent plaque inhibitory action to chlorhexidine as a rinse. Similar to chlorhexidine. the plaque inhibitory action of the rinses appears to be derived from a persistence of antimicrobial action in the mouth.