Literature DB >> 24660271

Superiority of essential oils versus 0.075% CPC-containing mouthrinse: a two-week randomized clinical trial.

Amisha M Parikh-Das, Naresh Chandra Sharma, Qiong Du, Christine Ann Charles.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized, examiner-blind, parallel, controlled clinical study was to compare the antiplaque/antigingivitis efficacy of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (EO) to a new 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinse (CPC) using a two-week experimental gingivitis model with a 5% hydroalcohol rinse serving as the negative control.
METHODS: After signing informed consents and completing baseline examinations, 185 subjects were randomized into three groups. Subjects began supervised/recorded rinsing with 20 ml of their assigned rinse for 30 seconds twice daily for two weeks, with no mechanical oral hygiene permitted. Baseline and two-week assessments were conducted as follows: Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI), Modified Gingival Index (MGI), and the Gingival Bleeding Index (BI). Analysis of efficacy variables (i.e., mean PI, mean MGI, mean BI, and proportion of bleeding sites derived from the BI) was performed using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
RESULTS: Among the 182 subjects who completed the study, the EO rinse showed statistically significant reductions compared to the negative control within the range previously reported in this model; PI = 36.5% (p < 0.001) and MGI = 17.5% (p < 0.001). A 43.2% reduction in proportion of bleeding sites (p < 0.001) was demonstrated. Mean PI, MGI, and proportion of bleeding sites at two weeks were statistically significantly lower for the EO rinse compared to the CPC rinse (p < 0.001), showing 27.7%, 11.9%, and 30.0% reductions, respectively.
CONCLUSION: An EO rinse provided superior antigingivitis/antiplaque efficacy compared to a 0.075% CPC rinse in this short-term clinical trial, and demonstrated efficacy within the range shown in previous studies using this model.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24660271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Dent        ISSN: 0895-8831


  6 in total

1.  The clinical evaluation of Vi-one chlorhexidine mouthwash on plaque-induced gingivitis: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Babak Amoian; Marzyeh Omidbakhsh; Soraya Khafri
Journal:  Electron Physician       Date:  2017-09-25

Review 2.  Adverse events associated with home use of mouthrinses: a systematic review.

Authors:  Gianluca M Tartaglia; Santosh Kumar Tadakamadla; Stephen Thaddeus Connelly; Chiarella Sforza; Conchita Martín
Journal:  Ther Adv Drug Saf       Date:  2019-09-23

3.  The Evaluation of the Effects of Two Probiotic Strains on the Oral Ecosystem: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Catherine M C Volgenant; Suzette V van der Waal; Bernd W Brandt; Mark J Buijs; Monique H van der Veen; N A M Rosema; Bernd L Fiebich; Thorsten Rose; Tim Schmitter; Max Gajfulin; Wim Crielaard; Egija Zaura
Journal:  Front Oral Health       Date:  2022-03-30

4.  Comparing the antiplaque efficacy of 0.5% Camellia sinensis extract, 0.05% sodium fluoride, and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash in children.

Authors:  Chaitali U Hambire; Rashmi Jawade; Amol Patil; Vaibhav R Wani; Ankur A Kulkarni; Parag B Nehete
Journal:  J Int Soc Prev Community Dent       Date:  2015 May-Jun

5.  In vitro antibacterial activity of Camellia sinensis extract against cariogenic microorganisms.

Authors:  P Anita; Shyam Sivasamy; P D Madan Kumar; I Nanda Balan; Sumathi Ethiraj
Journal:  J Basic Clin Pharm       Date:  2014-12

Review 6.  The use of mouthwash containing essential oils (LISTERINE®) to improve oral health: A systematic review.

Authors:  Fahad Ali Alshehri
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2017-12-19
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.