Premium
Efficacy of Mouthrinses in Inhibiting the Development of Supragingival Plaque Over a 4‐Day Period of No Oral Hygiene
Author(s) -
Moran John,
Addy Martin,
Kohut Bruce,
Hovliaras Christine A.,
Newcombe Robert G.
Publication year - 1994
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.1994.65.10.904
Subject(s) - triclosan , chlorhexidine , cetylpyridinium chloride , dentistry , crossover study , oral hygiene , mouth rinse , medicine , dental plaque , negative control , chemistry , placebo , traditional medicine , pulmonary surfactant , biochemistry , alternative medicine , pathology
T his study was a first stage evaluation of the plaque inhibitory properties of an experimental cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)/essential oil mouthrinse. The study was a formulation, not ingredient, evaluation and comparisons were made with established mouthrinse products. The 5 rinses tested were: the experimental formulation; a triclosan/copolymer prebrushing mouthrinse; two negative control rinses, which differed only in color; and as a positive control, a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinse. The study used a 5 cell, 4‐day plaque regrowth, double‐blind crossover design in which 15 subjects participated. Allocation of mouthrinse sequences was accomplished using 3 replicates of a 5 × 5 Latin square, incorporating balance for carryover. On Day 1, subjects received a scaling and polishing to reduce plaque, ceased toothcleaning, and commenced rinsing twice daily, under supervision, with the randomly assigned rinse. Rinsing time for the experimental and one negative control rinse was 30 seconds and for the other rinses was 60 seconds. On Day 5, plaque was scored by both index and area. Differences in plaque regrowth between the rinse groups were highly significant. The order of efficacy from the most effective was: chlorhexidine rinse (positive control); experimental CPC/essential oil rinse; triclosan/copolymer rinse; and the negative control rinses. From the calculated confidence intervals each rinse differed significantly from each other rinse, except for the two negative control rinses which were comparable to each other. Proportionately, the CPC/essential oil rinse was positioned 30 to 50% between the triclosan/copolymer rinse and the chlorhexidine (positive control). These findings suggest that the CPC/phenolic rinse would seem worthy of further evaluation for adjunctive benefits to oral hygiene. J Periodontol 1994;65:904–907