Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of three antiseptic mouthrinses: a two week randomized clinical trial

Amini, Pejmon; Araujo, Marcelo W B; Wu, Mingxin; Charles, Christine Ann; Sharma, Naresh

doi:10.1590/s1806-83242009000300016

Cited by 22 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sorption retards penetration (31). The penetration time tabulated in Table 2 Table 4 and four additional sources (1,9,19,30). The least-squares regressed line is shown as a dashed line.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial Penetration and Efficacy in an In Vitro Oral Biofilm Model

Corbin

Pitts

Parker

et al. 2011

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The penetration and overall efficacy of six mouthrinse actives was evaluated by using an in vitro flow cell oral biofilm model. The technique involved preloading biofilm cells with a green fluorescent dye that leaked out as the cells were permeabilized by a treatment. The loss of green color, and of biomass, was observed by time-lapse microscopy during 60 min of treatment under continuous flow conditions. The six actives analyzed were ethanol, sodium lauryl sulfate, triclosan, chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride, and nisin. Each of these agents effected loss of green fluorescence throughout biofilm cell clusters, with faster action at the edge of a cell cluster and slower action in the cluster center. The time to reach half of the initial fluorescent intensity at the center of a cell cluster, which can be viewed as a combined penetration and biological action time, ranged from 0.6 to 19 min for the various agents. These times are much longer than the predicted penetration time based on diffusion alone, suggesting that anti-biofilm action was controlled more by the biological action time than by the penetration time of the active. None of the agents tested caused any removal of the biofilm. The extent of fluorescence loss after 1 h of exposure to an active ranged from 87 to 99.5%, with CHX being the most effective. The extent of fluorescence loss in vitro, but not penetration and action time, correlated well with the relative efficacy data from published clinical trials.

show abstract

“…Sorption retards penetration (31). The penetration time tabulated in Table 2 Table 4 and four additional sources (1,9,19,30). The least-squares regressed line is shown as a dashed line.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antimicrobial Penetration and Efficacy in an In Vitro Oral Biofilm Model

Corbin

Pitts

Parker

et al. 2011

Antimicrob Agents Chemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This data confirmed that rinsing regularly with an EOcontaining mouthrinse twice a day can reduce the level of blood-borne bacteria caused by a standardized challenge such as that of chewing an apple. It seems reasonable to assume that maintaining good oral hygiene practices, including tooth brushing, flossing and using an effective antimicrobial mouthrinse agent regularly, contributes to preventing periodontal disease, [7][8][9][10][11][12] which, in turn, leads to a lower risk of developing bacteremia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• (9) teeth with gross dental caries, large fractured or temporary restorations or severe generalized cervical abrasion and/or enamel abrasion;…”

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the anti-bacteremic efficacy of an essential oil rinse in a Brazilian population: a cross-over study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This cross-over study was conducted to assess the germ-killing efficacy of an essential oil mouthrinse (EOM) by determining the blood levels of microorganisms associated with induced bacteremia and investigating the prevalence of this event in Brazilians with mild-to-moderate gingivitis. Thirty four (31.19%) subjects positive for bacteremia induced by chewing a ration of apple were enrolled out of 109 screened subjects (50 males and 59 females). A difference of at least 10 colony forming units between the pre-and post-insult blood samples was defined as a positive result. For the following two weeks patients underwent a toothbrush plus fluoride dentifrice normalization period, and were then scheduled for the Phase I protocol as follows. At baseline I, subjects were instructed to chew a new apple ration, had new blood samples taken before and after this oral stimulus, and were randomly assigned to an experimental essential oil (n = 17) or placebo (P) mouthrinse (n = 17) treatment for 2 weeks. These procedures were repeated at the end of Phase I and then followed by a two-week wash-out period (tooth brushing with fluoride dentifrice). Bacteremia was again induced at baseline and at the end of Phase II, when subjects were crossed-over to the other EOM or placebo groups. Bacterial count differences between baseline and 2-week post-treatment (EOM versus P) in the blood samples collected were assessed by analysis of covariance. Mean aerobic counts decreased by 45.8%, whereas mean anaerobic counts decreased by 63.3% after EOM treatment. After the P treatment, aerobic bacteria increased by 28.4% and anaerobic bacteria decreased by 18.5%. This study validated this novel methodology and showed that the germ-killing action of EOM significantly reduced bacteremia.

show abstract

“…More recently Tufekci et al, (2008) found Listerine® use can reduce the amount of plaque and gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. It was also found to have greater antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy than a cetylpyridinium chloride containing mouthwash (Amini et al, 2009). In subjects with mild to moderate gingivitis essential oils have reduced the effects of orally induced bacteraemia (Fine et al, 2010).…”

Section: Mouthwashesmentioning

confidence: 99%