Supragingival irrigation with 0.06% chlorhexidine in naturally occurring gingivitis. I. 6 month clinical observations.

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of supragingival irrigation with 0.06% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) on naturally occurring gingivitis. The relative benefit of CHX irrigation in comparison with CHX rinsing, water irrigation, and normal oral hygiene was evaluated. In a blind, placebo-controlled 6-month study 222 patients were assigned to one of four groups: Group 1: Once daily irrigation with 300 ml water followed by irrigation with 200 ml 0.06% chlorhexidine gluconate (experimental); Group 2: Twice daily rinsing with 15 ml 0.12% chlorhexidine (positive control); Group 3: Once daily irrigation with 500 ml water (irrigation control) and Group 4: Sodium fluoride dentifrice for normal oral hygiene only (negative control). All groups used the same sodium fluoride dentifrice for tooth brushing. At baseline, 3 months, and 6 months patients were examined for Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), Plaque Index (PLI), Pocket probing depth (PD), Calculus Index (CI), and stain. After the baseline visit all patients received a supra- and subgingival oral prophylaxis. At 6 months GI and BOP were significantly (P less than or equal to 0.05) reduced by adjunctive CHX irrigation (42.5% and 35.4%, respectively), CHX rinse (24.1% and 15.0%), and water irrigation (23.1% and 24.0%) compared to tooth brushing alone. Plaque was significantly (P less than or equal to 0.05) reduced only by CHX irrigation (53.2%) and CHX rinse (43.3%) while calculus and staining were significantly (P less than or equal to 0.05) increased in the two chlorhexidine groups (276.4% (irrigation) and 273.2% (rinse)). Although significant (P less than or equal to 0.05), pocket probing depth reduction was minimal after CHX irrigation (4.6%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A clinical comparison of antibacterial mouthrinses: effects of chlorhexidine, phenolics, and sanguinarine on dental plaque and gingivitis.

This study compared the clinical efficacy of three mouthrinses containing either 0.12% chlorhexidine, phenolic compounds, or sanguinarine, which were used unsupervised, in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study of 6 months' duration. The study was conducted according to ADA clinical guidelines for evaluation of antigingivitis agents and was completed by 481 adults. Following baseline exams and a prophylaxis, subjects were randomly divided into treatment groups matched for age, gender, and gingivitis severity, and were instructed to use the rinses in accordance with manufacturer's directions. Followup examinations evaluated supragingival plaque, gingivitis, and gingival bleeding. Compared to placebo at 6 months, the group rinsing with 0.12% chlorhexidine had significantly less gingivitis (31% reduction), gingival bleeding (39% reduction), and plaque (49% reduction) and was significantly better than any of the other treatment groups (P less than 0.05). Both the phenolic and sanguinarine groups showed moderate, yet significant, reductions in plaque compared to placebo (24% and 12% respectively) yet were significantly less effective than the 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse (P less than 0.05). However, neither the phenolic nor sanguinarine rinses were significantly different than placebo in their effects on gingivitis or gingival bleeding. These results support previous published results on the superiority of 0.12% chlorhexidine when used in conjunction with professional care and as an adjunct to routine oral hygiene practices.

A comparison of 3 clinical indices for measuring gingivitis.

A clinical study was conducted among 200 adult males and females to compare the intrusive gingival index (GI) for estimating gingivitis with the nonintrusive and only visually applied papillary-marginal-gingivitis index (PMGI). The GI examinations were performed by a senior examiner with long experience and a junior examiner, while the PMGI was graded by only a senior examiner with long experience. A 4th examiner was included for grading bleeding sites by gentle intrusion at the orifice of the gingival crevice. Following the baseline examination by all examiners, the subjects were randomly assigned to either a group that received an oral prophylaxis immediately or to a group that received an oral prophylaxis 6 weeks after the baseline. All subjects were regraded by all examiners 4 days after the 2nd group received a prophylaxis. This delayed prophylaxis design created a difference in the responses between treatment groups. Both the GI examiners and the PMGI examiner concluded there was significantly less gingivitis in the group receiving a prophylaxis second. There were also significantly fewer bleeding sites in the group receiving a prophylaxis second as determined by both GI examiners and the bleeding-sites examiner.