Impact of tongue cleansers on microbial load and taste.

OBJECTIVES: Tongue cleaning has been advocated to improve oral malodor and to reduce reinfection of periodontal niches by eliminating tongue coating and/or reducing putrefaction by bacteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-over, single-blind study on periodontitis-free, non-smoking, subjects with habitual oral hygiene (n=16), evaluated the effect of tongue cleaning (with either plastic scraper or nylon multi-tufted toothbrush), on the microbial load of the tongue dorsum (anterior and posterior of the sulcus terminalis), the extent of tongue coating, and taste sensation for bitter, sweet, salt, and sour. Both devices had been used twice daily for 2 weeks (toothbrush three forward-backward movements along the linea mediana and for each longitudinal third of the tongue; two strokes with the scraper along the linea mediana and along the borders of the tongue). RESULTS: Two weeks of tongue brushing or scraping resulted in only negligible reductions in aerobic and anaerobic bacteria on the tongue (reductions <0.5 log). The amount of tongue coating, however, decreased significantly (p<0.05), with both devices. The taste sensation improved after 2 weeks of tongue cleaning, especially with the scraper (significant improvements for quinine and sodium chloride). CONCLUSION: Tongue cleaning improves taste sensation and seems to reduce the substrata for putrefaction, rather than the bacterial load.

A split-mouth study on periodontal and microbial parameters in children with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate.

BACKGROUND: Complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) is a hereditary or multifactorial malformation that can be corrected successfully with a combined orthodontic, surgical and restorative treatment. Such multidisciplinary treatment takes many years and demands a lot of attention to both patients' teeth and periodontium. OBJECTIVES: This split-mouth study aimed to compare the periodontal health as well as the microbial parameters between cleft and non-cleft region. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 75 patients (52 males, 23 females) between 8 and 20 years with a complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (before (n = 30), during (n = 34) and after (n = 11) the active orthodontic treatment) volunteered for this study. Four regions were defined for the split-mouth comparison: teeth neighbouring cleft (site 1), tooth in cleft (site 2), and the corresponding contra-lateral teeth, respectively, in the unaffected quadrants (sites 3 and 4). At all sites the following periodontal parameters were recorded: plaque and gingivitis indices, pocket depth, attachment loss, bleeding on probing, tooth mobility (visual and Periotest), radiographic bone loss and gingival width. In addition, three pooled subgingival plaque samples were taken (around tooth in cleft, teeth facing the cleft, and contra-lateral teeth of the latter). RESULTS: The differences between the teeth neighbouring the cleft and the corresponding contra-lateral opponents were of borderline significance (P

Effect of different chlorhexidine formulations in mouthrinses on de novo plaque formation.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution, still the golden standard as mouthrinse for the prevention of plaque formation and development of gingivitis, has some limited side-effects such as extrinsic tooth staining, poor taste, taste disturbance, sensitivity changes in tongue, pain, and the content of alcohol. These side effects led to the search of new formulations. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, cross-over study, 16 young dental students with a healthy periodontium, abolished all means of mechanical plaque control during 4 experimental periods of 11 days (separated from each other by a washout period of 3 weeks). During each experimental period, they rinsed 2x daily with one of the following mouthrinses in a randomised order: CHX 0.2% + alcohol (Corsodyl), CHX 0.12% + alcohol (Perio.Aid), CHX 0.12% + sodium fluoride 0.05% (Cariax Gingival) and CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% (Perio.Aid, new formulation). After 7 and 11 days of undisturbed plaque formation, clinical parameters were recorded, questionnaires completed and plaque samples (supragingivally and saliva) collected. RESULTS: The CHX 0.12% + alcohol and the CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% formulations were as efficient as the CHX 0.2% mouthrinse in retarding de novo plaque formation (proven by clinical observations as well as by anaerobic and aerobic culture data), and always superior (p<0.001) to the CHX 0.12% + sodium fluoride 0.05% solution. The subjective ratings were in favour of the new CHX formulation when compared with the other CHX formulations, especially for taste (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated the potential of a new CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% non-alcoholic formulation as an effective anti-plaque and anti-inflammatory agent with reduced unpleasant subjective side-effects.

Effect of different mouthrinses on morning breath.

BACKGROUND: Morning breath odor is an often-encountered complaint. This double-blind, crossover, randomized study aimed to examine the bad breath-inhibiting effect of 3 commercially available mouthrinses on morning halitosis during an experimental period of 12 days without mechanical plaque control. METHODS: Twelve medical students with a healthy periodontium refrained from all means of mechanical plaque control during 3 experimental periods of 12 days (with intervening washout periods of at least 3 weeks). A professional oral cleaning preceded each period. During each experimental period, as the only oral hygiene measure allowed, the students rinsed twice a day with one of the following formulations in a randomized order: CHX-Alc (a 0.2% chlorhexidine [CHX] solution); CHX-NaF (CHX 0.12% plus sodium fluoride 0.05%); or CHX-CPC-Zn (CHX 0.05% plus cetylpyridinium chloride 0.05% plus zinc lactate 0.14%). After 12 days, morning breath was scored via volatile sulfur compound (VSC) level measurements of the mouth air and organoleptic ratings of the mouth air, the expired air, and a scraping of the tongue coating. At the 12-day visit, a questionnaire (subjective ratings) was completed and samples taken from both the tongue coating and the saliva for anaerobic and aerobic culturing and vitality staining. The de novo supragingival plaque formation was also recorded. All parameters were correlated with the baseline registrations. RESULTS: Although oral hygiene during the 3 experimental periods was limited to oral rinses, bad breath parameters systematically improved, with the exception of a slight increase in VSC levels while using CHX-Alc, a finding which was associated with the direct influence of the CHX on the sulfide monitor. The oral microbial load after the use of CHX-NaF remained unchanged, while for the CHX-Alc and CHX-CPC-Zn, significant reductions in both aerobic and anaerobic colony forming units (CFU)/ml were noticed in comparison with baseline data for both tongue coating and saliva samples. The composition of microflora, on the other hand, did not reveal significant changes. The supragingival plaque formation was inhibited, in descending order, by CHX-Alc, CHX-CPC-Zn, and CHX-NaF. The subjective scores for the rinses indicated a higher appreciation for CHX-CPC-Alc and CHX-NaF because of a better taste and fewer side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that morning halitosis can be successfully reduced via daily use of mouthrinses. CHX-Alc and CHX-CPC-Zn mouthrinses result in a significant reduction of the microbial load of tongue and saliva.