Comparison of Antiplaque Efficacy of Commercially Available HiOra (Herbal) Mouthwash with Listerine Mouthwash: A Clinical Study

Gill, Sanjeet; Kapoor, Daljit; Singh, Jagjit; Nanda, Tarun

doi:10.15171/jpid.2017.009

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The strong response of the two Listerine ® mouthwashes in this evaluation reflects the well-known and well-reported clinical performance of Listerine ® essential oil mouthwashes [24,[42][43][44][45][46], and demonstrates this model's sensitivity to essential oils. Even earlier than the evaluations of Dr. Miller [47], Listerine was among the first mouthwashes available to the public, though originally, the formula was not intended for oral care primarily but for other personal hygiene purposes [48].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Glycolysis and Automated Plaque Regrowth Method for Evaluation of Antimicrobial Performance

Karlinsey,

Karlinsey

2024

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study explored the potential of a new in vitro method in evaluating antiplaque benefits from five sets of antimicrobial systems including cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), stannous fluoride (SnF2), Listerine essential oil mouthwashes (+/− alcohol), zinc chloride (ZnCl2), and sodium fluoride. (NaF). Methods: Gingival dental plaque was collected and propagated using sterilized tryptic soy broth and sucrose, and then allocated into separate glycolysis and regrowth recipes for antiplaque evaluations. Glycolysis measurements (in duplicate) were recorded via pH microelectrode on plaque-treatment samples thermomixed (1200 rpm, 37 °C) for 4 h. For plaque regrowth, optical densities (in duplicate) were automatically collected on plaque-treatment samples using a microplate reader (linear shaking, 37 °C) from baseline to 4 h. Results: Calculations of percent change in pH and optical density were performed and analyzed for each set of antimicrobial treatment groups. Statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA, Student–Newman–Keuls stepwise comparison tests) revealed dose responses and significant differences (p < 0.05) among treatment groups, including between negative and clinically relevant positive controls. Conclusions: This lab method produces results consistent with published clinical observations. This glycolysis and plaque growth method is sensitive to antimicrobial mechanisms of action, and may offer a convenient and clinically relevant screening tool in the evaluation of putative antimicrobial agents and formulations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Glycolysis and Automated Plaque Regrowth Method for Evaluation of Antimicrobial Performance

Karlinsey,

Karlinsey

2024

Dentistry Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, its regular and extended use should be avoided [7]. Listerine is a mouthwash made in an attempt to reduce the side effects of CHX; it is effective in controlling halitosis and caries, but as it contains alcohol, there have been complaints about its unpleasant taste [5,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Antibacterial Effect of Propolis and Its Application in Mouthwash Production

Nazeri

Ghaiour

Abbasi

2019

fid

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The purpose was to determine the antibacterial properties of propolis and to evaluate its use as an antibacterial mouthwash with minimal complications. Materials and Methods: In this experimental laboratory study, an alcoholic propolis extract was prepared. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was calculated for four bacterial species including Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus), and Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) using agar dilution. According to the MIC, a propolis antibacterial mouthwash was produced and compared to water, chlorhexidine (CHX), and Listerine using laboratory rats for clinical examination. Salivary specimens of rats were collected at 12 hours, 1 week, and 2 weeks after using the mouthwash and examined by the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and repeated measures ANOVA (α=0.05). Results: The results of agar dilution by the number of colony-forming units (CFU) showed the lowest MIC for S. aureus and the highest for L. acidophilus. The results of the RT-PCR indicated that water alone had no effect on the level of oral bacteria. Propolis mouthwash showed a significant difference with CHX and Listerine (P<0.05) in terms of the number of S. mutans, E. faecalis, and L. acidophilus colonies, while CHX and Listerine were less efficient. There was no significant difference between CHX and propolis (P=0.110) regarding S. aureus colonies, but Listerine had a lower efficacy than either (P<0.05). Conclusions: According to the results, propolis mouthwash was more efficient against the studied oral bacteria compared to CHX and Listerine.

show abstract

“…From the results of the study, they concluded that both mouthwashes yielded comparable results in plaque reduction, thus highlighting the role of herbal mouthwash as a potent antiplaque agents. 14…”

Section: Efficacy Of Mouthwashes In Gingivitis Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Different Mouthwashes in Gingivitis Patients: A Clinical Study

Jerry Stephens,

Mary Peters,

Sonam Kapoor

et al. 2023

IHRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Adequate plaque control becomes essential for reducing the progression of periodontal disease. Plaque management consists several mechanical procedures and chemical agents that retard the formation of plaque. AIM: To compare clinical outcomes of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash and Hiora herbal mouthwash in gingivitis patients. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The study was conducted among 30 patients. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, Group I used Chlorhexidine mouthwash and Group II received Hiora mouthwash. Clinical parameters such as Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), Probing depth (PD) and Clinical Attachment Loss (LA) were recorded just before initiation of oral prophylaxis. After completion of oral prophylaxis, patients were advised to use mouthwash and were recalled after two weeks for further recording of clinical parameters. The collected data was thus statistically analysed to arrive at the results using SPSS version 24.0 and applying the student's t-test. RESULTS: Both the groups reported significant improvement in clinical parameters. When two mouthwashes were compared, a statistically significant difference in the mean value of PI (0.02) and GI (0.01), CAL and PD between the two experimental groups whereas no significant differences were observed before and after therapeutic interventions. CONCLUSION: The study concluded that herbal mouthwash are comparably effective in comparison to other conventional mouthwash in controlling dental biofilm

show abstract

Comparison of Antiplaque Efficacy of Commercially Available HiOra (Herbal) Mouthwash with Listerine Mouthwash: A Clinical Study

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Glycolysis and Automated Plaque Regrowth Method for Evaluation of Antimicrobial Performance

Glycolysis and Automated Plaque Regrowth Method for Evaluation of Antimicrobial Performance

Evaluation of Antibacterial Effect of Propolis and Its Application in Mouthwash Production

Comparison of the Efficacy of Two Different Mouthwashes in Gingivitis Patients: A Clinical Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About