4.5 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 79, 期 7, 页码 1177-1183

出版社

AMER ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2008.070583

关键词

dental plaque/prevention and control; essential oils/therapeutic use; fluoride/therapeutic use; oral hygiene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.5
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