4.6 Article

Evaluation of additional amine fluoride/stannous fluoride-containing mouthrinse during supportive therapy in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis - A randomized, crossover, double-blind, controlled trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 9, Pages 742-748

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00552.x

Keywords

aggressive periodontitis; antimicrobial agents; periodontal disease/treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The objective of the present randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a mouthrinse containing a combination of AmF/SnF2 in controlling supragingival plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation during a 12-week period in patients affected by generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP). Methods: Eighteen subjects, six males and 12 females, mean age: 32.2 years, were evaluated. One-half of the patients was either prescribed an AmF/SnF2-containing mouthrinse (test mouthrinse) or a control mouthrinse in addition to mechanical plaque control for 12 weeks. After a 2-week wash-out period, the patients received the alternative mouthrinse. Before and after treatment plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), angulated bleeding index (AngBI), tooth stain (GMSI), and tongue stain were recorded. Results: Test mouthrinse resulted in a statistically significant decrease in PlI (p=0.029) and GI (p=0.017). After treatment, PlI was significantly lower in test compared to control mouthrinse (p=0.027). GMSI significantly increased post-treatment for both mouthrinse regimens (p<0.001), a significantly higher score being observed for the test compared to control mouthrinse (p=0.002). Conclusions: The 12-week use of a AmF/SnF2-containing mouthrinse as an adjunct to conventional mechanical oral hygiene procedures in GAP patients was effective in controlling the amount of supragingival plaque deposits.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available