English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

BACKGROUNDThe aim of this study was to investigate the inhibiting effect of a chlorine dioxide mouthrinse as opposed to a mouthrinse containing chlorhexidine (0.20%) during 3 days of plaque accumulation.METHODSAt baseline, all participants (N=77) received a professional prophylaxis and were randomly assigned to the test (chlorine dioxide) or (positive) control (chlorhexidine) group. On the following 3 days, both groups rinsed twice daily for 1 minute with 10 ml test or control solution. At the end of the experimental period, plaque was assessed, and the panelists filled out a questionnaire.RESULTSChlorhexidine inhibited plaque growth significantly more than the mouthrinse containing chlorine dioxide (plaque index=1.39 versus 1.96, respectively; P<0.001). The results of the questionnaire showed that the panelists found chlorhexidine easier to use and more effective. However, they preferred the taste of the chlorine dioxide mouthrinse and experienced less taste alterations.CONCLUSIONChlorine dioxide mouthrinse seems to be a less potent plaque inhibitor than chlorhexidine.

Chlorine dioxide and chlorhexidine mouthrinses compared in a 3-day plaque accumulation model.