Premium
Efficacy of different mouthrinse formulations in reducing oral malodour: a randomized clinical trial
Author(s) -
Dadamio Jesica,
Tournout Marie,
Teughels Wim,
Dekeyser Christel,
Coucke Wim,
Quirynen Marc
Publication year - 2013
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/jcpe.12090
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , single blind , masking (illustration) , dentistry , therapeutic effect , antimicrobial , double blind , chemistry , placebo , art , visual arts , alternative medicine , organic chemistry , pathology
Aims The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of mouthrinses formulations in oral malodour. Material & Methods This single‐centre, double‐blind, randomized, parallel group clinical trial compared the efficacy of Halita™ and meridol ® with and without zinc lactate versus negative and positive control. Volunteers with confirmed oral malodour (18/group) rinsed with one mouthrinse during 7 days (15 ml, 2x/day for 1 min.). 15 min. after a first rinse (masking effect), and after 7 days (therapeutic effect) the change in organoleptic scores and level of sulphur compounds was recorded. Results All rinses showed a masking effect ( OLS 1 to 2 values reduced), only the rinses with antimicrobial ingredients showed a therapeutic effect ( OLS 1 to 1.5 value less). The addition of zinc resulted in a more pronounced masking effect. Halita™ and meridol ® with zinc showed the best therapeutic effect. Conclusion Although the masking effect of the rinses can be attributed partially to a dilution and the effect of aromas, the therapeutic effect should be linked to the anti‐microbial action of active ingredients and counter action of zinc ions on VSC . A complete resolution of the unpleasant breath by additional mechanical intervention remains to be proven.