4.6 Article

Efficacy of an amine fluoride-triclosan mouthrinse as compared to the individual active ingredients

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 192-196

出版社

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-051X.2003.10250.x

关键词

triclosan; amine fluoride; chlorhexidine; clinical trial; plaque; biofilm vitality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of the clinical study was to examine the antibacterial and plaque-reducing properties of mouthrinses containing triclosan (TRI), amine fluoride (AmF), and the combination of both (AFT) on 4-day plaque regrowth. A placebo solution (PLA) and a 0.2% chlorhexidine solution (CHX) served as negative and positive controls, respectively. Materials & Methods: After a professional tooth cleaning (day 0), 15 volunteers refrained from all mechanical oral hygiene measures for the next 96 h and rinsed instead twice daily for 1 min with 10 ml of one of the five randomly assigned solutions. Plaque index (PlI), which was assessed after 24 and 96 h (PlI1, PlI2), and plaque area of the front teeth (PA), which was planimetrically recorded from disclosed teeth after 96 h, served as clinical parameters. After 24 and 96 h a plaque sample was taken and analyzed microbiologically to evaluate biofilm vitality (VF1, VF2). The subsequent test cycles were conducted after a washout period of 10 days each. Results: No severe adverse events or allergy were seen during the study. CHX influenced all parameters at all time points in comparison to PLA. AFT and AmF showed very similar values (in all parameters), but AmF did not reach the level of significance regarding VF1, nor did AFT with VF2 and PlI1. The TRI solution only reduced PlI2 and PA significantly, but had no influence on biofilm vitality when compared to PLA. Conclusion: A synergism between AmF and TRI was not observed. The results suggest that the plaque-reducing and antibacterial effects of the AFT solution are mainly based on the effects of the amine fluoride moiety.

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