4.6 Article

The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 829-839

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x

关键词

chlorhexidine; concentration; gingivitis; mouthrinse; mouthwash; plaque; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque and periodontal parameters. Materials and methods MEDLINE-PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomized) clinical trials and cohort studies. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Results Screening of 409 titles and abstracts identified eight eligible publications. A meta-analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index showed a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p=0.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley & Hein Plaque Index (1968) was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03-0.17]) (heterogeneity I2=0%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation. No difference in the effect of gingivitis between the two concentrations was found in these studies. No studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. Conclusions In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据