Premium
An approach to efficacy screening of mouthrinses: studies on a group of French products
Author(s) -
Addy M.,
Wade W.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00832.x
Subject(s) - chlorhexidine , antiseptic , staining , cetylpyridinium chloride , serial dilution , dentistry , food science , microbiology and biotechnology , chemistry , medicine , biology , biochemistry , pathology , pulmonary surfactant , alternative medicine
. There is a large and increasing number of oral hygiene products available to the general public. As such, it is difficult to demonstrate efficacy for all in long‐term home‐use studies. The aim of this project was to determine whether screening studies could position the activity and efficacy of a number of antiseptic mouthrinses, available in France, by comparison with an established product. This study reports the experiments in vitro. The products under test were, 4 containing chlorhexidine (Eludril, Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine) with Hibident considered the positive control, one containing cetylpyridinium chloride (Alodont) and one containing hexetidine (Hextril). The 1st study determined the antibacterial profile of the chlorhexidine products against a panel of oral bacteria using an agar dilution method. The 2nd study recorded, by optical density, the propensity of all products to induce tea staining on clear acrylic specimens. The maximum inhibitory dilutions (MID) of the chlorhexidine products against the test organisms, once adjusted for initial concentration differences, were essentially similar. One exception was Eludril which had an increased MID against Capnocytophaga sputigena , an organism normally less sensitive to chlorhexidine. Hibident and Prexidine produced expected levels of tea staining; that produced by Parodex was lower than the expected. Staining by Eludril was little different than water controls suggesting markedly reduced availability of chlorhexidine in this product. Alodont consistent with the very low CPC content also produced little staining and would be expected to show minimal effects against plaque in vivo. Hextril produced similar staining to Hibident but, because of the different antiseptic content, it is difficult to extrapolate the data to clinical effects. For the chlorhextdine products these data in vitro are cautiously extrapolated to indicate an expected similarity in clinical activity for Hibident and Prexidine and probably Parodex. Eludril would be expected to show considerably reduced substantivity and efficacy.