A Clinical Comparison of Antibacterial Mouthrinses:

Abstract

This study compared the clinical efficacy of three mouthrinses containing either 0.12% chlorhexidine, phenolic compounds, or sanguinarine, which were used unsupervised, in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 6 months' duration. The study was conducted according to ADA clinical guidelines for evaluation of antigingivitis agents and was completed by 481 adults. Following baseline exams and a prophylaxis, subjects were randomly divided into treatment groups matched for age, gender, and gingivitis severity, and were instructed to use the rinses in accordance with manufacturer's directions. Followup examinations evaluated supragingival plaque, gingivitis, and gingival bleeding. Compared to placebo at 6 months, the group rinsing with 0.12% chlorhexidine had significantly less gingivitis (31% reduction), gingival bleeding (39% reduction), and plaque (49% reduction) and was significantly better than any of the other treatment groups (P less than 0.05). Both the phenolic and sanguinarine groups showed moderate, yet significant, reductions in plaque compared to placebo (24% and 12% respectively) yet were significantly less effective than the 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse (P less than 0.05). However, neither the phenolic nor sanguinarine rinses were significantly different than placebo in their effects on gingivitis or gingival bleeding. These results support previous published results on the superiority of 0.12% chlorhexidine when used in conjunction with professional care and as an adjunct to routine oral hygiene practices.

Comparison of the effects of cetylpyridinium chloride with an essential oil mouth rinse on dental plaque and gingivitis – a six‐month randomized controlled clinical trial

“…These values are closely related to the results of the present study and indicate a substantially reduced preventive effect of the EO compound when compared with rinses with chlorhexidine digluconate (e.g. Grossman et al 1989) that had GI and bleeding site reductions amounting to more than double that encountered with the EO mouth rinse. As in the study mentioned (Grossman et al 1989), no further improvement was seen in the preventive clinical effects of the mouth rinses between 3 and 6 months of unsupervised application.…”

“…The results compare with those of previous studies on the preventive effects of first‐generation antiseptic mouth rinses (Kornman 1986) both using the experimental gingivitis model (Siegrist et al 1991) and 6‐month trials of unsupervised rinsing (e.g. Grossman et al 1989). In the latter study, the GI reductions at 3 months corresponded to approximately 14%, and bleeding sites were reduced by 15%, respectively, when compared with a placebo application.…”

Comparative evaluation of a herbal mouthwash (Freshol) with chlorhexidine on plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, and salivary Streptococcus mutans growth

“…Grossman et al .,[28] and Moran et al .,[29] on the contrary could not relate to this study as they found chlorhexidine to have better effect on plaque control than extracts of chamomile. Similarly, Dalirsani et al .,[19] could not relate to this study, as they found chlorhexidine to have better antimicrobial effect than chamomile when studied against.…”

Interactions of Sanguinarine and Zinc on Oral Streptococci and Actinomyces Species

“…Etemadzadeh and Ainamo [1987] found on clinically significant difference in oral hy giene or plaque scores between Viadent oral rinse and tap water in another regime that lacked a mechanical plaque removal component. In the most extensive study of the effects of CHX and sanguinarine on den tal plaque and gingivitis Grossman et al [1989] found significant reductions in plaque and gingivitis at 6 months mediated by CHX-but not by a sanguinarine-based product when compared to a placebo con trol. Unfortunately, the placebo control had over 11% alcohol and contained saccharine, a known antibacte rial agent.…”