Premium
An approach to efficacy screening of mouthrinses: studies on a group of French products
Author(s) -
Harper P. Renton,
Milsom S.,
Wade W.,
Addy M.,
Moran J.,
Newcombe R. G.
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.tb00833.x
Subject(s) - group (periodic table) , medicine , dentistry , traditional medicine , chemistry , organic chemistry
. The aim of this study was to determine the value of screening studies to assess the efficacy of antiseptic mouthrinse products relative to proven products. The products tested were 6 antiseptic mouthrinses available in France. 4 contained chlorhexidine (Eludril Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine) with Hibident considered the positive control. 1 product contained cetylpyridinium chloride (Alodont) and 1 hexetidine (Hextril). Saline was used as the negative control. The 1st study assessed the persistence of action of the products by recording salivary bacterial counts before and up to 7 h after single rinses. The 2nd study measured the inhibition of plaque regrowth, from a zero baseline, in the absence of tooth‐brushing over a 4‐day period. Both studies used blind randomised crossover designs balanced for residual effects. Salivary bacterial count reductions with time were highly significantly different between products. Compared to saline, decrements were only significantly greater for Parodex to 5 h and Hibident and Prexidine to 7 h; There were no significant differences between the latter three chlorhexidine rinses except at 3 h, when decrements were significantly less with Parodex. Despite a mean trend in favour, Alodont. Eludril and Hextril were not significantly different from saline. Plaque inhibition by area and index was highly significantly different between products. Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine showed similar plaque inhibition and were significantly more effective than all other rinses. Eludril and Hextril were significantly more effective than saline but Alodont was not. Taken with the associated study in vitro and published reports on the same or similar products, it is apparent that efficacy of a product cannot be assumed merely because it contains a known active plaque inhibitor. Studies in vitro can provide supportive evidence but should not stand alone. Clinical investigations similar to these should be a minimum requirement for any oral hygiene product before claims of efficacy comparable to established products are made.