Effetto di un collutorio agli oli essenziali nella riduzione di placca e infiammazione interprossimali rispetto a una soluzione a base di etanolo

In Situ Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils with and without Alcohol on Oral Biofilm: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Currently, there is little evidence on the in situ antibacterial activity of essential oils (EO) without alcohol. This study aimed to evaluate in situ the substantivity and antiplaque effect on the plaque-like biofilm (PL-biofilm) of two solutions, a traditional formulation that contains EO with alcohol (T-EO) and an alcohol-free formulation of EO (Af-EO). Eighteen healthy adults performed a single mouthwash of: T-EO, Af-EO, and sterile water (WATER) after wearing an individualized disk-holding splint for 2 days. The bacterial viability (BV) and thickness of the PL-biofilm were quantified at baseline, 30 s, and 1, 3, 5, and 7 h post-rinsing (Test 1). Subsequently, each volunteer wore the splint for 4 days, applying two daily mouthwashes of: T-EO, Af-EO, and WATER. The BV, thickness, and covering grade (CG) of the PL-biofilm were quantified (Test 2). Samples were analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy after staining with the LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ solution. To conduct the computations of the BV automatically, a Matlab toolbox called Dentius Biofilm was developed. In test 1, both EO antiseptics had a similar antibacterial effect, reducing BV after a single rinse compared to the WATER, and keeping it below baseline levels up to 7 h post-rinse (P < 0.001). The mean thickness of the PL-biofilm after rinsing was not affected by any of the EO formulations and ranged from 18.58 to 20.19 μm. After 4 days, the T-EO and Af-EO solutions were significantly more effective than the WATER, reducing the BV, thickness, and CG of the PL-biofilm (P < 0.001). Although, both EO antiseptics presented a similar bactericidal activity, the Af-EO rinses led to more significant reductions in the thickness and CG of the PL-biofilm than the T-EO rinses (thickness = 7.90 vs. 9.92 μm, P = 0.012; CG = 33.36 vs. 46.61%, P = 0.001). In conclusion, both essential oils antiseptics had very high immediate antibacterial activity and substantivity in situ on the 2-day PL-biofilm after a single mouthwash. In the 4-day PL-biofilm, both essential oils formulations demonstrated a very good antiplaque effect in situ, although the alcohol-free formula performed better at reducing the biofilm thickness and covering grade.

Alcohol-free essential oils containing mouthrinse efficacy on three-day supragingival plaque regrowth: a randomized crossover clinical trial

Background

To evaluate the antiplaque effects of an alcohol-free mouthrinse containing essential oils—Listerine Zero (LZ)—and an alcohol-based essential oils mouthrinse (EO+) compared with a positive control of 0.20% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (CHX) and a negative control of a placebo solution (saline), using an in vivo plaque regrowth model of three days.

Methods

The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 21 volunteers to compare four different mouthrinses, using a three-day plaque regrowth model. After receiving thorough professional prophylaxis at baseline, over the next three days each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and performed two daily rinses with 15 mL of the test mouthrinses. EO+ was compared with LZ. CHX rinse served as a positive control and a placebo solution as a negative control. At the end of each experimental period, the Plaque Index (PI) was assessed and a panelist completed through a visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire evaluating the organoleptic properties of each product. Each participant underwent a 14-day washout period and then there was another allocation.

Results

LZ showed the same inhibitory activity on plaque regrowth compared with EO+ in the whole mouth (PI = 1.72 versus 1.65, respectively), but there was less of an effect compared to the CHX (overall PI of 1.07) and a more efficient activity than the saline solution negative control (PI = 2.31). The difference of 0.07 between LZ and EO+ was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

LZ seems to have the same inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth as EO+ and a less inhibiting effect than the CHX control. Both LZ and EO+, as well as the CHX control, show a better inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth than the placebo solution.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02894593. Registered on 4 September 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1901-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy of two mouthwashes on 3-day supragingival plaque regrowth: a randomized crossover clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiplaque effects of an alcohol-free essential oil (alcohol-free EO) mouthwash and an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride with zinc lactate (SnFl-Zn) mouthwash compared to a positive control of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash, using an in vivo plaque regrowth model of 3 days.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 20 volunteers to compare two different mouthwashes, using a 3-day plaque accumulation model. After receiving thorough professional prophylaxis at baseline, over the next 3 days, each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and performed two daily rinses with 20 ml of the test mouthwashes. A 0.20% CHX rinse served as a positive control. At the end of each experimental period, plaque was assessed, and the panellists completed a questionnaire. Each subject underwent a 14-day washout period, and then, there was another allocation.

RESULTS

The SnFl-Zn mouthwash has shown a better inhibitory activity on plaque regrowth compared to the alcohol-free EO mouthwash in the whole mouth (plaque index = 1.93 against 2.45, respectively), but there was less of an effect compared to the CHX group, with an overall plaque index of 1.41. The differences of 0.52 between alcohol-free EO and SnFl-Zn and between SnFl-Zn and CHX and of 0.96 between alcohol-free EO and CHX were all statistically significant (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The alcohol-free EO mouthwash seemed to have less of an inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth than the amine fluoride/SnFl-Zn mouthwash and the CHX control.

Efficacy of essential oil mouthwash with and without alcohol: a 3-day plaque accumulation model

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiplaque effect of a new alcohol free essential oil mouthwash with respect to a control of an essential oil with alcohol mouthwash, using an in vivo plaque regrowth model of 3-days.

Methods

The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 30 volunteers to compare two different essential oil containing mouthwashes, during a 3-day plaque accumulation model. After receiving a thorough professional prophylaxis at the baseline, over the next 3-days each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and had two daily rinses with 20 ml of the test mouthwash (alcohol free essential oil) or the control mouthwash (essential oil with alcohol). At the end of the each experimental period, plaque was assessed and the panelists filled out a questionnaire. Each subject underwent a 14 days washout period and there was a second allocation.

Results

The essential oil mouthwash with ethanol shows a better inhibitory effect of plaque regrowth in 3-days than the mouthwash test with only essential oil in the whole mouth (plaque index = 2.18 against 2.46, respectively, p < 0.05); for the lower jaw (plaque index = 2.28 against 2.57, respectively, p < 0.05); for the upper jaw (plaque index = 2.08 against 2.35, respectively, p < 0.05); for the incisors (plaque index = 1.93 against 2.27, respectively, p < 0.05); and the canines (plaque index = 1.99 against 2.47, respectively, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The essential oil containing mouthwash without alcohol seems to have a less inhibiting effect on the plaque regrowth than the traditional alcoholic solution.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411618