OBJECTIVE: To test the plaque inhibitory effect of an experimental 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinse in a 3-day plaque accumulation model in a cross-over design. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 30 subjects (non-dental students), ≥18 years of age, were randomly assigned to use one of three different mouthrinses three times a day. After 3 days, the subjects returned for the clinical assessments and received a questionnaire to evaluate their attitude towards the product used by them. The cross-over procedure was repeated twice to have all subjects use all products. RESULTS: A total of 29 subjects completed the protocol and this resulted in a statistically significant difference between the three groups (P < 0.001) with regard to plaque scores. Over three sessions, the mean plaque scores were 2.17 for the control product, 1.14 for the CPC group and 1.12 for the 0.1% Hexetidine product (positive control). Results of the questionnaire show that, compared with hexetidine, the taste of the CPC was appreciated better, and less oral sensations were observed following rinsing. CONCLUSION: The CPC mouthrinse proved to be effective in inhibiting 'de novo' plaque formation to an extent similar to that of a 0.1% hexetidine product. Compared with hexetidine, the taste of the CPC was appreciated better and less oral sensations were observed following rinsing.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the plaque inhibitory effect of an experimental 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinse in a 3-day plaque accumulation model in a cross-over design. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 30 subjects (non-dental students), ≥18 years of age, were randomly assigned to use one of three different mouthrinses three times a day. After 3 days, the subjects returned for the clinical assessments and received a questionnaire to evaluate their attitude towards the product used by them. The cross-over procedure was repeated twice to have all subjects use all products. RESULTS: A total of 29 subjects completed the protocol and this resulted in a statistically significant difference between the three groups (P < 0.001) with regard to plaque scores. Over three sessions, the mean plaque scores were 2.17 for the control product, 1.14 for the CPC group and 1.12 for the 0.1% Hexetidine product (positive control). Results of the questionnaire show that, compared with hexetidine, the taste of the CPC was appreciated better, and less oral sensations were observed following rinsing. CONCLUSION: The CPC mouthrinse proved to be effective in inhibiting 'de novo' plaque formation to an extent similar to that of a 0.1% hexetidine product. Compared with hexetidine, the taste of the CPC was appreciated better and less oral sensations were observed following rinsing.