The effects of an essential oil and an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride mouthrinse on supragingival plaque regrowth.

BACKGROUND: The side effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) have stimulated the search for alternative antiplaque agents such as amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (ASF) and essential oils (EO). The aim of the study was to investigate the plaque-inhibiting effects of two commercially available mouthrinses containing ASF and EO, respectively. METHODS: The study was an observer-masked, randomized, 5 x 5 Latin square cross-over design, balanced for carryover effects, involving 15 volunteers in a 4-day plaque regrowth model. A 0.12% CHX rinse and a saline solution served as positive and negative controls, respectively. On day 1, subjects received professional prophylaxis, suspended oral hygiene measures, and commenced rinsing with their allocated rinses. On day 5, subjects were scored for disclosed plaque. The ASF rinse was tested at two dosages: 10 and 20 ml (ASF-10 and ASF-20, respectively). RESULTS: The ASF and EO rinses showed a significant inhibition of plaque regrowth compared to saline (P <0.0001), but the lowest plaque indices were obtained with the CHX product (P <0.01). There were no significant differences among products containing ASF-10, ASF-20, and EO (P >0.05). There was no correlation between the occurrence of side effects and the use of a particular rinse product (P >0.2). CONCLUSIONS: ASF and EO mouthrinses exerted effective and similar plaque inhibition. The two dosages tested for ASF did not differ in plaque reduction. These findings, together with those from long-term trials, suggest that ASF and EO rinses may represent effective alternatives to CHX rinse as adjuncts to oral hygiene.

The effects of sugar-free chewing gums on dental plaque regrowth: a comparative study.

UNLABELLED: Sugar-free chewing gum has been claimed to be a useful means of reducing dental plaque accumulation. The incorporation of additives, such as enzymes, abrasives and divalent metal ions, into gum formulations might improve their antiplaque activity, particularly at the buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the plaque inhibitory effects of three sugar-free chewing gums each containing lactoperoxidase (LP), micro granules of silicon dioxide (SD), and zinc gluconate (ZG). METHODS: The study was an observer-masked, randomized cross-over design balanced for carryover effects, involving 12 healthy volunteers in a 4-day plaque regrowth model. An additive-free (AF) gum served as positive/negative control for occlusal and smooth surfaces, respectively. On day 1, subjects received professional prophylaxis, suspended oral hygiene measures, and commenced chewing their allocated product. Gum chewing was one piece chewed for 30min 4 times a day. On day 5, subjects were scored for disclosed plaque. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in antiplaque activity of the gums tested, neither for the smooth nor for the occlusal surfaces (P=0.447 and P=0.418, respectively). Similar results were obtained for the anterior and posterior sites of smooth surfaces (P>0.05), and for the lower and upper sites of occlusal surfaces (P=0.451 and P=0.53, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the chewing gums containing LP, SD and ZG would provide no plaque inhibitory effects on smooth surfaces. The gums containing these additives, therefore, should not be recommended as adjuncts to mechanical oral hygiene.

The effects of an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride and an antimicrobial host protein mouthrinse on supragingival plaque regrowth.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine (CHX)-containing mouthrinses are recommended as adjuncts to mechanical oral hygiene. The problem associated with side effects, however, has stimulated the search for alternative antiplaque agents. The aim of this study was to investigate the plaque inhibitory effects of two mouthrinses containing amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (ASF) and antimicrobial host proteins (lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and lactoferrin; LLL), respectively. METHODS: The study was an observer-masked, randomized 4x4 Latin square cross-over design balanced for carryover effects, involving 12 healthy volunteers in a 4-day plaque regrowth model. A 0.12% CHX mouthrinse and a saline solution served as positive and negative controls, respectively. On day 1, subjects received professional prophylaxis, suspended oral hygiene measures, and commenced rinsing with their allocated rinses. On day 5, subjects were scored for disclosed plaque. RESULTS: The ASF rinse showed a significant inhibition of plaque regrowth in comparison to both saline and LLL solutions, but the lowest plaque indices were obtained with the CHX formulation (P<0.01). There were no significant differences between LLL rinse and saline (P>0.05). Such pattern of efficacy was the same in anterior and posterior teeth and in vestibular and lingual surfaces as well, with the exception of the lingual anterior surfaces. In these sites, differences between the CHX and ASF rinses were not significant (P>0.05). A significantly higher prevalence of side effects was found in subjects using the CHX product (P<0.0042). CONCLUSIONS: Although the effect on plaque regrowth observed with 0.12% CHX rinsing was superior to that with ASF, the ASF rinse was not associated with side effects. These findings, together with those from long-term trials, suggest that the ASF rinse may represent an effective alternative to CHX rinse as an adjunct to oral hygiene. On the contrary, the LLL rinse did not significantly inhibit plaque regrowth.