BACKGROUND:Chlorhexidine (CHX) is widely accepted as the most effective product in the control of supragingival plaque. It is available in different delivery devices. The aim of this study was to test whether 0.12% CHX spray was as effective as 0.2% CHX spray and 0.2% CHX mouthwash in a 3-day "de novo" plaque formation model. METHODS:Ninety volunteers were enrolled into a single-blind, randomized, three-group parallel study. They received a thorough dental prophylaxis prior to the test period. Subjects were divided randomly into three equal groups. They were requested to refrain from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene and instructed to use only their assigned product during the 3-day experimental period. After 3 days, the plaque growth was assessed using the Quigley and Hein plaque index (Q&H PI) at six sites per tooth. RESULTS: After 3 days, the CHX mouthwash group had a mean Q&H PI of 1.17 compared to 1.41 for the 0.2% CHX spray and 1.49 for the 0.12% CHX spray. The difference between the mouthwash and the two sprays was statistically significant, whereas the two sprays did not differ significantly from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this 3-day "de novo" plaque formation study, the two sprays were not as effective as the mouthwash in plaque inhibition. No significant difference was found between the two sprays. To achieve the same effectiveness as a mouthwash, a higher dose (number of puffs) of CHX spray may be necessary.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Chlorhexidine (CHX) is widely accepted as the most effective product in the control of supragingival plaque. It is available in different delivery devices. The aim of this study was to test whether 0.12% CHX spray was as effective as 0.2% CHX spray and 0.2% CHX mouthwash in a 3-day "de novo" plaque formation model. METHODS: Ninety volunteers were enrolled into a single-blind, randomized, three-group parallel study. They received a thorough dental prophylaxis prior to the test period. Subjects were divided randomly into three equal groups. They were requested to refrain from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene and instructed to use only their assigned product during the 3-day experimental period. After 3 days, the plaque growth was assessed using the Quigley and Hein plaque index (Q&H PI) at six sites per tooth. RESULTS: After 3 days, the CHX mouthwash group had a mean Q&H PI of 1.17 compared to 1.41 for the 0.2% CHX spray and 1.49 for the 0.12% CHX spray. The difference between the mouthwash and the two sprays was statistically significant, whereas the two sprays did not differ significantly from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this 3-day "de novo" plaque formation study, the two sprays were not as effective as the mouthwash in plaque inhibition. No significant difference was found between the two sprays. To achieve the same effectiveness as a mouthwash, a higher dose (number of puffs) of CHX spray may be necessary.