4.6 Article

Three different rinsing times and inhibition of plaque accumulation with chlorhexidine

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 89-92

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00640.x

Keywords

chlorhexidine; clinical trial; mouth rinse; plaque

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: This study assessed the plaque inhibiting effect of a 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution (Corsodyl(R)) with three different rinsing times following a 72 h non-brushing period. Material and Methods: The clinical investigation was a single-blind, randomised study involving 90 volunteer students (40 male and 50 female, mean age 23.2 years). Subjects were randomly allocated to one of three groups for which the protocol only differed with respect to the duration of rinsing. At the start of the trial, all participants received a dental prophylaxis to remove all plaque deposits. Subjects refrained from all mechanical oral hygiene procedures, but rinsed two times per day for the allocated duration with CHX mouth rinse over a period of 72 h. The chlorhexidine preparation was of 0.2% concentration used at a dose of 10 ml for either 15, 30 or 60 s. After 72 h, the Quigley & Hein plaque index (PI) from all volunteers was recorded at six sites per tooth. All participants received a questionnaire to evaluate their perception of rinsing duration. Results: After 72 h, the mean whole-mouth PI was 1.33, 1.18 and 1.24, respectively, for the 15, 30 and 60 s rinsing group. The difference in plaque scores between the three groups was not statistically significant. Results from the questionnaire showed a significant difference between the groups for their perception of rinsing duration. Conclusions: No significant difference was observed in the level of plaque after 72 h of non-brushing whether the subjects rinsed for 15, 30 or 60 s with 0.2% chlorhexidine.

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