Search

Copyright of Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia is the property of Universidad de Antioquia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study aimed to evaluate the anti-plaque and antigingivitis effects of two mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), in comparison to negative control mouthwash. One hundred and twenty subjects were randomly assigned to study groups: test (0.075% CPC and 0.28% zinc lactate), positive control (0.07% CPC) and negative control mouthwash without CPC. All volunteers were examined by a calibrated examiner for the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (Turesky modification) and Loe-Silness Gingival Index (GI). Gingival severity was also measured by the percentage of sites with positive gingival bleeding. During six weeks, oral hygiene consisted of brushing twice daily with a toothbrush and toothpaste and rising with their assigned mouthwash. Plaque and gingival parameters were assessed at baseline, after four and six weeks of product use. Statistical analyses were performed separately for plaque and gingival indices, by ANOVA, paired t-test and ANCOVA (a < 0.05). After 4 and 6 weeks, all mouthwashes groups presented statistically significant reductions in plaque and gingival parameters as compared to baseline. In comparison to the positive control, the test group presented additional reductions in dental plaque of 19.8% and 16.8%, after 4 and 6 weeks, respectively. For GI, the additional reductions in the test group were 9.7% and 14.3%, at 4 and 6 weeks, respectively. The test group showed additional reduction of 35.3% and 54.5% in the gingival severity, at week 4 and 6, respectively It is concluded that the mouthwash containing CPC and zinc lactate presents significant anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis effects as compared to positive and negative control mouthwashes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this randomized, single blinded clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of a pre-procedural mouthwash containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), zinc lactate (Zn) and sodium fluoride (F) in the reduction of viable bacteria in oral aerosol after a dental prophylaxis with ultrasonic scaler. Sixty systemically healthy volunteers receiving dental prophylaxis were randomly assigned to one of the following experimental groups (15 per group): (i) rinsing with 0.075% CPC, 0.28% Zn and 0.05% F (CPC+Zn+F), (ii) water or (iii) 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), and (iv) no rinsing. Viable bacteria were collected from different locations in the dental office on enriched TSA plates and anaerobically incubated for 72 hours. The colonies were counted and species were then identified by Checkerboard DNA-DNA Hybridization. The total number of colony-forming units (CFUs) detected in the aerosols from volunteers who rinsed with CPC+Zn+F or CHX was statistically significantly (p<0.05) lower than of those subjects who did not rinse or who rinsed with water. When all locations were considered together, the aerosols from the CPC+Zn+F and CHX groups showed, respectively, 70% and 77% fewer CFUs than those from the No Rinsing group and 61% and 70% than those from the Water group. The mean proportions of bacterial species from the orange complex were statistically significantly (p<0.05) lower in aerosols from the CPC+Zn+F and CHX groups compared with the others two groups. In conclusion, the mouthwash containing CPC+Zn+F, is effective in reducing viable bacteria in oral aerosol after a dental prophylaxis with ultrasonic scaler. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The use of mouthwashes represents, in many cases, the first option for the chemical control of dental biofilm. To evaluate in vitro susceptibility of Streptococcus oralis (ATCC 10557) to commercial mouthwashes available on the Brazilian market. Methods: Seven mouthwashes were evaluated: Equate®, Colgate Plax Overnight®, Sanifill®, Cepacol Cool Citrus® and Oral-B® (cetylpyridinium chloride), Listerine® (Thymol) and Peroxyl® (hydrogen peroxide). A 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate oral rinse (Periogard®) served as a positive control. The antibacterial activity of the mouthwashes in 7 dilutions (1:0 to 1:32) was evaluated by determining the maximum inhibitory dilution (MID) in Muller Hinton agar supplemented with 5% blood. Fifty microliters of each ready-to-use solution and their dilutions were poured into wells perforated in the solid culture medium and the dishes were incubated in bacteriological incubators at 37°C for 24 hours. The analysis of MID data was based on the measurement of the zones of bacterial growth inhibition (in mm) formed around the wells (only inhibition zones with a diameter ≥10 mm were considered). Results: The following MIDs were obtained: 1:2 for Equate® and Oral-B®, 1:1 for Sanifill®, and 1:4 for Plax®, Cepacol® and Periogard®. Peroxyl® and Listerine® did not show antibacterial activity against S. oralis. In conclusion, S. oralis presented susceptibility to the mouthwashes evaluated in this study, except for Peroxyl® and Listerine®. Conclusion: These results suggest that cetylpyridinium chloride and chlorhexidine gluconate, which are the most important active components of the tested brands of mouthwashes, are important agents in the chemical control of dental biofilm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our understanding of dental plaque biofilm has evolved since the nonspecific plaque hypothesis that considered plaque as a nonspecific mass of native microorganisms that, because of lack of oral hygiene, builds up in proportions great enough to overcome the host resistance threshold and affect the tooth structure and tooth supporting tissues. A great diversity of microorganisms--over 700 species--was detected in the oral cavity, and evidence shows that the investigation of specific microorganisms or associations of microorganisms as etiological agents for periodontal diseases and caries is not a simplistic approach. Although clinical evidence shows that oral mechanical hygiene is fundamental to prevent and control caries and periodontal disease, it is important to highlight that optimal control is not achieved by most individuals. Thus the complementary use of chemotherapeutic agents has been investigated as a way to overcome the deficiencies of mechanical oral hygiene habits, insofar as they reduce both plaque formation and gingival inflammation, and represent a valid strategy to change the biofilm and maintain dental and periodontal health. The role of the dental professional is to monitor patients and offer them the best recommendations to preserve oral health throughout their life. With this in mind, chemical control should be indicated as part of daily oral hygiene, together with mechanical procedures, for all individuals who present supragingival and/or subgingival biofilm, taking into account age, physical and/or psychological limitations, allergies, and other factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of RGO: Revista Gaúcha de Odontologia is the property of RGO: Revista Gaucha de Odontologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Two antimicrobial agents, a fixed combination of essential oils (EOs) and 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are found in commercially available mouthrinses, Listerine® Antiseptic and Crest® Pro Health™, respectively. Both mouthrinses have been shown to control dental plaque and gingivitis in short and longer term studies. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two mouthrinses using a 2-week experimental gingivitis model. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthrinse groups: a fixed combination of EOs, 0.07% CPC, or negative control (C) rinse. Following baseline clinical assessments and a dental prophylaxis, subjects began a two-week period in which they rinsed twice daily with their assigned rinse and abstained from any mechanical oral hygiene procedures or other oral care products. Subjects were reassessed at the end of the two-week period. One hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized and 142 completed this study. After two weeks use, the EOs rinse was superior (p ≤ 0.011) to the CPC rinse in inhibiting the development of gingivitis, plaque, and bleeding, with 9.4% and 6.6% reductions compared to CPC for gingivitis and plaque, respectively. Both rinses were superior to the negative control rinse (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the essential oil-containing mouthrinse has superior antiplaque/antigingivitis effectiveness compared to the 0.07% CPC-containing mouthrinse without mechanical oral hygiene influence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients frequently fail to achieve an optimal mechanical plaque control. However, many patients are not confident about using mouthrinses, and many professionals refuse to prescribe them for regular daily use. Aiming at achieving a better understanding of the use and prescription of mouthrinses in periodontics, 24 dentists with different dental educational levels were purposively chosen and interviewed in a qualitative research. Partial data was presented at the 15th Congress of the Brazilian Association for Oral Health Promotion (ABOPREV), and full data was presented at the 88th General Session and Exhibition of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR). The professionals' answers were confirmed or rejected through scientific data analysis. Additionally, scientifically supported answers were provided for the interviewees' most frequent unanswered questions. Around half of the participants (46%) reported that they recommended the use of mouthrinses, although a high percentage (64%) of the dentists answered that they knew very little about the efficacy of mouthrinses and also about the oral benefits (54%) provided by them. All interviewees reported that they were aware of the fact that their patients, and themselves, failed to floss and, less frequently, to brush their teeth, and all of them believed that oral health impacts overall systemic health. Seventy five percent answered that using mouthrinses was safe. Most participants (55%) did not declare themselves as mouthrinse users. We concluded that dentists with different levels of dental education have only partial knowledge related to mouthrinse use in periodontics. The use of effective mouthrinses on a daily basis is justified and can help patients achieve or maintain a healthier mouth. A healthier mouth will positively impact patients' quality of life and could also benefit their overall systemic health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Odonto Ciencia is the property of EDIPUCRS - Editora Universitaria da PUCRS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)