4.1 Article

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of 0.2% Chlorhexidine, Listerine and Tulsi extract mouth rinses on salivary Streptococcus mutans count of high school children-RCT

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 802-808

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.06.007

关键词

Chlorhexidine; Listerine; Tulsi; Latin square design; Streptococcus mutans

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess and compare the effect of 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouth rinse, Listerine mouth rinse and 4% Tulsi extract mouth rinse on salivary Streptococcus mutans level. Methods: The present study is an experimental study of cross over type, employing Latin square design. 45 school children aged 14-15 years were divided into three groups/blocks. The baseline unstimulated saliva samples were obtained from each group and assessed for Streptococcus mutans counts. The study was divided in to three phases, each phase lasted for 8 days separated by a washout period of 15 days in between them. Groups A, B and C were treated with 0.2% Chlorhexidine, Listerine and 4% Tulsi extract mouth rinses respectively in the phase I. The study subjects were instructed to use the assigned mouth rinse twice daily for 1 min for 7 days. On day 8th the subjects were instructed to use the mouth rinse only once in the morning. The follow up unstimulated saliva samples were collected 1 h after the use of the assigned mouth rinse and assessed for salivary Streptococcus mutans counts. After phase I, mouth rinses were crossed over as dictated by the Latin square design in phase II and III. Results: All the three mouth rinses have individually shown a statistically significant reduction in the salivary Streptococcus mutans counts. When the three mouth rinses were compared the difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Tulsi has stood the test and is as effective as Chlorhexidine and Listerine in reducing the salivary S. mutans levels. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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