Alexander Welk1, Maral Zahedani2, Carolin Beyer3, Axel Kramer4, Gerald Müller4. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology, Endodontology, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 42a, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. welk@uni-greifswald.de. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology, Endodontology, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 42a, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. 3. Private Practice, Schwerin, Germany. 4. Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical study was to determine the antibacterial and antiplaque efficacy of a recently introduced octenidine-containing mouthrinse (Octenidol®) in comparison with established antiseptic mouthrinses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 4-day plaque-regrowth study employing a four-replicate cross-over design, a 0.1 % octenidine mouthrinse (Octenidol®/OCT-MR) was compared with a 0.12 % chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Paroex®/CHX-MR), an essential oil mouthrinse (Listerine®/EO-MR), and a placebo mouthrinse/P-MR. Plaque regrowth was assessed with a modified Quigley-Hein plaque index. The antibacterial effect was assessed by taking bacterial counts from the tooth surface and oral mucosa after professional tooth cleaning and after first rinsing with the allocated mouthrinse on days 1 and 5. Sixteen volunteerssuspended tooth cleaning and rinsed twice daily with the allocated mouthrinse for 4 days. RESULTS: All tested antiseptic mouthrinses were significantly more effective than the placebo mouthrinse in inhibiting plaque, but no significant differences were observed between OCT-MR and CHX-MR, OCT-MR and EO-MR, and CHX-MR and EO-MR. After 4 days, comparable bacterial count levels were found on both the tooth surface and mucosa applying OCT-MR and CHX-MR, which were significantly lower than that of EO-MR and P-MR. CONCLUSION:Octenidol® and Paroex® showed comparable antibacterial and antiplaque efficacy in the human oral cavity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The recently introduced octenidine-containing mouthrinse Octenidol® may become a suitable alternative to 0.12 % chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses such as Paroex®.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this clinical study was to determine the antibacterial and antiplaque efficacy of a recently introduced octenidine-containing mouthrinse (Octenidol®) in comparison with established antiseptic mouthrinses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 4-day plaque-regrowth study employing a four-replicate cross-over design, a 0.1 % octenidine mouthrinse (Octenidol®/OCT-MR) was compared with a 0.12 % chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Paroex®/CHX-MR), an essential oil mouthrinse (Listerine®/EO-MR), and a placebo mouthrinse/P-MR. Plaque regrowth was assessed with a modified Quigley-Hein plaque index. The antibacterial effect was assessed by taking bacterial counts from the tooth surface and oral mucosa after professional tooth cleaning and after first rinsing with the allocated mouthrinse on days 1 and 5. Sixteen volunteers suspended tooth cleaning and rinsed twice daily with the allocated mouthrinse for 4 days. RESULTS: All tested antiseptic mouthrinses were significantly more effective than the placebo mouthrinse in inhibiting plaque, but no significant differences were observed between OCT-MR and CHX-MR, OCT-MR and EO-MR, and CHX-MR and EO-MR. After 4 days, comparable bacterial count levels were found on both the tooth surface and mucosa applying OCT-MR and CHX-MR, which were significantly lower than that of EO-MR and P-MR. CONCLUSION:Octenidol® and Paroex® showed comparable antibacterial and antiplaque efficacy in the human oral cavity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The recently introduced octenidine-containing mouthrinse Octenidol® may become a suitable alternative to 0.12 % chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinses such as Paroex®.
Authors: Yvonne Jockel-Schneider; Ulrich Schlagenhauf; Hari Petsos; Stefan Rüttermann; Jana Schmidt; Dirk Ziebolz; Christian Wehner; Markus Laky; Thea Rott; Michael Noack; Barbara Noack; Katrin Lorenz Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.573