Literature DB >> 15560817

Comparative effects of different chlorhexidine mouth-rinse formulations on volatile sulphur compounds and salivary bacterial counts.

Silvia Roldán1, David Herrera, Isabel Santa-Cruz, Ana O'Connor, Itziar González, Mariano Sanz.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare five different commercial mouth rinses with chlorhexidine (CHX) with respect to their anti-halitosis effect and anti-microbial activity on salivary bacterial counts, following a standardised research protocol. And secondly, to validate the study model proposed in the evaluation of patients suffering from halitosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten volunteers, with a healthy oral status, were enrolled in a double-blind, cross-over design, using sterile saline as negative control and five CHX-containing mouth rinses: 0.12% CHX alone (CHX+NO), plus alcohol (CHX+ALC), plus 0.05% cetylpiridinium chloride (CHX+CPC), plus sodium fluoride (CHX+NaF), and 0.05% CHX plus 0.05% CPC, plus 0.14% zinc lactate (CHX+Zn). The levels of whole-mouth volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) were measured by means of a sulphide monitor at baseline, 1 and 5 h after rinsing with the assigned product. Baseline measurements also included an organoleptic assessment and the recording of the tongue-coating index. Aerobic and anaerobic salivary bacterial counts were also obtained by collecting unstimulated saliva samples at the same evaluation times, and processed by culturing techniques. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate whether significant differences existed among groups, at each evaluation point, or in changes between evaluations.
RESULTS: No significant differences were detected at baseline, with VSC levels ranging between 190 and 227 parts per billion (p.p.b.) After rinsing, VSC levels were reduced with all products (except saline), after 1 h. Significant differences at 1 h were detected (p=0.04), corresponding to a lower amount of p.p.b. (109) in (CHX+Zn) as compared with the other groups (except CHX+NO). At 5 h, VSC levels were lower for CHX+CPC and CHX+Zn (155 and 169, respectively), while the other groups showed levels higher than 220 p.p.b. With respect to aerobic salivary bacterial counts, CHX+CPC demonstrated the lowest percentage of survival (6% after 1 h and 18% after 5 h). For anaerobic bacterial counts, again CHX+CPC demonstrated the lowest percentage of survival (10% at 1 h and 23% at 5 h), together with CHX+ALC (18% of survival at 5 h). However, salivary counts and VSCs were only significantly correlated at baseline, but not after treatment.
CONCLUSION: Important differences can be expected from different CHX formulations, in relation to both their anti-halitosis effect and anti-microbial activity in saliva. Formulations that combine CHX and CPC achieved the best results, and a formulation combining CHX with NaF resulted in the poorest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15560817     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00621.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Periodontol        ISSN: 0303-6979            Impact factor:   8.728


  22 in total

1.  Evaluation of oral antiseptic rinsing before sputum collection to reduce contamination of mycobacterial cultures.

Authors:  Renata L Peres; Moisés Palaci; Rafaela B Loureiro; Reynaldo Dietze; John L Johnson; Jonathan E Golub; A Ruffino-Netto; Ethel L Maciel
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Comparative efficacy of oil pulling and chlorhexidine on oral malodor: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Poonam Sood; Aruna Devi M; Ridhi Narang; Swathi V; Diljot Kaur Makkar
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-11-20

3.  Non-invasive intravital observation of lingual surface features using sliding oral mucoscopy techniques in clinically healthy subjects.

Authors:  Satoko Tsuchida; Ken Yoshimura; Naoki Nakamura; Naoki Asanuma; Shin-Ichi Iwasaki; Yukio Miyagawa; Shinichi Yamagiwa; Takashi Ebihara; Yuko Morozumi; Tomoichiro Asami; Naoki Kosuge
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 2.634

4.  Effects of a mouthwash with chlorine dioxide on oral malodor and salivary bacteria: a randomized placebo-controlled 7-day trial.

Authors:  Kayoko Shinada; Masayuki Ueno; Chisato Konishi; Sachiko Takehara; Sayaka Yokoyama; Takashi Zaitsu; Mari Ohnuki; Fredrick Allan Clive Wright; Yoko Kawaguchi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-02-12       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Interventions for managing halitosis.

Authors:  Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj; Prashanti Eachempati; Eswara Uma; Vijendra Pal Singh; Noorliza Mastura Ismail; Eby Varghese
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-12-11

6.  Effectiveness of three oral hygiene regimens on oral malodor reduction: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Ei Ei Aung; Masayuki Ueno; Takashi Zaitsu; Sayaka Furukawa; Yoko Kawaguchi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.279

7.  Evaluation of the Efficacy of G32 (Commercially Available Ayurvedic Preparation) in Reducing Halitosis - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Snehal Patil; Shashidhar Acharya; Siddhi Hathiwala; Deepak Kumar Singhal; Samuel Raj Srinivasan; Sachin Khatri
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-09-01

8.  Evaluation of the Efficacy of Lacer HaliTM Treatment on the Management of Halitosis: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Laiqi Xiang; Rosa Rojo; Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-23       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Halitosis: From diagnosis to management.

Authors:  Bahadır Uğur Aylıkcı; Hakan Colak
Journal:  J Nat Sci Biol Med       Date:  2013-01

10.  A randomized double blind crossover placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the effects of a mouthwash containing chlorine dioxide on oral malodor.

Authors:  Kayoko Shinada; Masayuki Ueno; Chisato Konishi; Sachiko Takehara; Sayaka Yokoyama; Yoko Kawaguchi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.