PURPOSE:Commercialized cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinses were compared for antimicrobial substantivity/bioavailability in an in vitro disk retention assay (DRA) and clinical antimicrobial activity in vivo in the plaque glycolysis and regrowth method (PGRM). METHODS: Formulations compared in this testing included commercially available CPC mouthrinses: Crest Pro Health (CPH), (containing 700 ppm formulated CPC); Colgate Total Puerto Rico (CT450), (containing 450 ppm formulated CPC); Colgate Total US (CT750), (containing 750 ppm formulated CPC); and Scope Mouthwash (SCP), (containing 450 ppm formulated CPC). A water control (CTR) was included in one of the PGRM clinical trials. Two separate clinical PGRM studies employed a controlled, double-blind, randomized, crossover design where qualified adult PGRM panelists were supplied with acclimation NaF dentifrice for use throughout the trials. On treatment days, subjects sampled baseline plaque and then rinsed with assigned mouthrinse following morning toothbrushing. Treated plaque samples were collected 15 and 45 minutes after rinsing. Sampled plaques were vortexed, normalized for biomass and incubated under standard conditions to assess glycolysis. pH response of treated plaques in incubation buffers were compared to baseline untreated plaque values and an Area Under Curve (AUC) composite/aggregate analysis of glycolysis inhibition was used for treatment comparisons. A laboratory disk retention substantivity/bioavailability assay measured adsorption affinity of CPC in mouthrinse for anionic cellulose disks in vitro. RESULTS: Clinical PGRM studies showed significant differences in antibacterial clinical efficacy of commercialized mouthrinses. Combining clinical study results reveals rank ordered efficacy CPH > CT750 > SCP > CT450 > CTR. Comparison of DRA to PGRM glycolysis showed a linear relation highlighting correlation of CPC bioavailability to clinical antimicrobial performance of CPC mouthrinses.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Commercialized cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinses were compared for antimicrobial substantivity/bioavailability in an in vitro disk retention assay (DRA) and clinical antimicrobial activity in vivo in the plaque glycolysis and regrowth method (PGRM). METHODS: Formulations compared in this testing included commercially available CPC mouthrinses: Crest Pro Health (CPH), (containing 700 ppm formulated CPC); Colgate Total Puerto Rico (CT450), (containing 450 ppm formulated CPC); Colgate Total US (CT750), (containing 750 ppm formulated CPC); and Scope Mouthwash (SCP), (containing 450 ppm formulated CPC). A water control (CTR) was included in one of the PGRM clinical trials. Two separate clinical PGRM studies employed a controlled, double-blind, randomized, crossover design where qualified adult PGRM panelists were supplied with acclimation NaF dentifrice for use throughout the trials. On treatment days, subjects sampled baseline plaque and then rinsed with assigned mouthrinse following morning toothbrushing. Treated plaque samples were collected 15 and 45 minutes after rinsing. Sampled plaques were vortexed, normalized for biomass and incubated under standard conditions to assess glycolysis. pH response of treated plaques in incubation buffers were compared to baseline untreated plaque values and an Area Under Curve (AUC) composite/aggregate analysis of glycolysis inhibition was used for treatment comparisons. A laboratory disk retention substantivity/bioavailability assay measured adsorption affinity of CPC in mouthrinse for anionic cellulose disks in vitro. RESULTS: Clinical PGRM studies showed significant differences in antibacterial clinical efficacy of commercialized mouthrinses. Combining clinical study results reveals rank ordered efficacy CPH > CT750 > SCP > CT450 > CTR. Comparison of DRA to PGRM glycolysis showed a linear relation highlighting correlation of CPC bioavailability to clinical antimicrobial performance of CPC mouthrinses.
Authors: Enyia R Anderson; Edward I Patterson; Siobhan Richards; Ana K Pitol; Thomas Edwards; Dominic Wooding; Kate Buist; Alison Green; Sayandip Mukherjee; Michael Hoptroff; Grant L Hughes Journal: J Med Microbiol Date: 2022-02 Impact factor: 2.472