AIM: (1) To determine the plaque inhibition properties of two formulations of alcohol-free mouthwash [0.1% w/w cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) (B) and 0.05% w/w CPC (A)] versus a placebo mouthwash (C). (2) To compare the plaque-inhibiting activity between these two new CPC mouthwashes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A double-blind, crossover study with three 1-week periods was used. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following groups. Group 1 (n=10) received the mouthwashes A, C and B in the periods 1, 2 and 3, respectively, group 2 (n=11) received the mouthwashes in the order B, A, C, while group 3 (n=11) received the mouthwashes in the order C, B, A. Mean plaque areas and Quigley & Hein plaque index scores were analysed using anova (analysis of variance). Measurements were made at the start of each period (baseline) and at 16, 24 and 40 h. RESULTS:Mean plaque scores were similar across the groups at baseline. At all time points thereafter, volunteers using mouthwash A or B had significantly lower plaque areas and plaque index scores than those using mouthwash C (p<0.05), but there were no significant differences between the test formulations. At 16 h, the reduction in plaque area relative to mouthwash C was 22% for mouthwash A and 18% for mouthwash B; at 24 h, 11% for mouthwash A and 15% for mouthwash B; and at 40 h, 15% for mouthwash A and 16% for mouthwash B. CONCLUSIONS: The use of both CPC mouthwashes resulted in less plaque accumulation compared with the control. There was no statistically significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two CPC mouthwashes.
RCT Entities:
AIM: (1) To determine the plaque inhibition properties of two formulations of alcohol-free mouthwash [0.1% w/w cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) (B) and 0.05% w/w CPC (A)] versus a placebo mouthwash (C). (2) To compare the plaque-inhibiting activity between these two new CPC mouthwashes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A double-blind, crossover study with three 1-week periods was used. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following groups. Group 1 (n=10) received the mouthwashes A, C and B in the periods 1, 2 and 3, respectively, group 2 (n=11) received the mouthwashes in the order B, A, C, while group 3 (n=11) received the mouthwashes in the order C, B, A. Mean plaque areas and Quigley & Hein plaque index scores were analysed using anova (analysis of variance). Measurements were made at the start of each period (baseline) and at 16, 24 and 40 h. RESULTS: Mean plaque scores were similar across the groups at baseline. At all time points thereafter, volunteers using mouthwash A or B had significantly lower plaque areas and plaque index scores than those using mouthwash C (p<0.05), but there were no significant differences between the test formulations. At 16 h, the reduction in plaque area relative to mouthwash C was 22% for mouthwash A and 18% for mouthwash B; at 24 h, 11% for mouthwash A and 15% for mouthwash B; and at 40 h, 15% for mouthwash A and 16% for mouthwash B. CONCLUSIONS: The use of both CPC mouthwashes resulted in less plaque accumulation compared with the control. There was no statistically significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two CPC mouthwashes.
Authors: Prakash Raut; Sasha R Weller; Bright Obeng; Brandy L Soos; Bailey E West; Christian M Potts; Suraj Sangroula; Marissa S Kinney; John E Burnell; Benjamin L King; Julie A Gosse; Samuel T Hess Journal: Toxicol Appl Pharmacol Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Jianru Liu; Yan Huang; Xinzhe Lou; Bei Liu; Wenyi Liu; Na An; Rong Wu; Xiangying Ouyang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 2.692