The use of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinses in patients with inter-maxillary fixation

Current uses of chlorhexidine for management of oral disease: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used antiseptic mouthwash, used by dental practitioners and the public, due to its antimicrobial effects. The aim of this article was to provide a narrative review of current antimicrobial uses of CHX relevant to dentistry in the context of oral diseases, highlighting need for further studies to support its safe and appropriate use.

STUDY SELECTION, DATA AND SOURCES

Randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and national (UK and US) guidelines were consulted where available, with search terms for each subject category entered into MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database.

RESULTS

Some evidence existed to support adjunctive short-term use of CHX to manage dental plaque, and reduce clinical symptoms of gingivitis, dry socket, as well as reduce aerosolisation of bacteria. However, use must be weighed alongside the less desirable effects of CHX, including extrinsic staining of teeth, antimicrobial resistance to antiseptic agents and the rare, but fatal, allergic reactions to CHX. Conversely, evidence for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine to manage or prevent periodontitis, dental caries, necrotising periodontal diseases, peri-implantitis, and infections associated with extraction and aerosolised viruses remains less certain.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CHX in dentistry and oral healthcare continues to be widespread and thus it is important that dental practitioners understand that, based on its differential mechanisms of action on different microbes, appropriate clinical and dental use of CHX should be oral disease specific. However, further scientific and clinical research is required before full recommendations can be made.

Effect of different chlorhexidine formulations in mouthrinses on de novo plaque formation

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution, still the golden standard as mouthrinse for the prevention of plaque formation and development of gingivitis, has some limited side-effects such as extrinsic tooth staining, poor taste, taste disturbance, sensitivity changes in tongue, pain, and the content of alcohol. These side effects led to the search of new formulations.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomised, cross-over study, 16 young dental students with a healthy periodontium, abolished all means of mechanical plaque control during 4 experimental periods of 11 days (separated from each other by a washout period of 3 weeks). During each experimental period, they rinsed 2x daily with one of the following mouthrinses in a randomised order: CHX 0.2% + alcohol (Corsodyl), CHX 0.12% + alcohol (Perio.Aid), CHX 0.12% + sodium fluoride 0.05% (Cariax Gingival) and CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% (Perio.Aid, new formulation). After 7 and 11 days of undisturbed plaque formation, clinical parameters were recorded, questionnaires completed and plaque samples (supragingivally and saliva) collected.

RESULTS

The CHX 0.12% + alcohol and the CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% formulations were as efficient as the CHX 0.2% mouthrinse in retarding de novo plaque formation (proven by clinical observations as well as by anaerobic and aerobic culture data), and always superior (p<0.001) to the CHX 0.12% + sodium fluoride 0.05% solution. The subjective ratings were in favour of the new CHX formulation when compared with the other CHX formulations, especially for taste (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrated the potential of a new CHX 0.12% + CPC 0.05% non-alcoholic formulation as an effective anti-plaque and anti-inflammatory agent with reduced unpleasant subjective side-effects.

Chlorhexidine compared with other locally delivered antimicrobials. A short review

Based on the association of bacterial plaque with the initiation of chronic gingivitis and progression of chronic periodontitis, chemical antiplaque agents have been employed both in prevention of periodontal disease and its treatment. In supragingival plaque control regimens, chlorhexidine has not been superceded as a chemical anti-plaque agent, although other compounds have been shown to be useful. The local side-effects of chlorhexidine and other cationic antiseptics, however, limit their long-term use for prevention. Extrinsic tooth staining in particular remains the greatest problem. Short-term anti-plaque uses for chlorhexidine include as an adjunct to mechanical cleaning in the initial oral hygiene phase of treatment, in situations where mechanical oral hygiene is difficult, including postsurgery, intermaxillary fixation, fixed orthodontic therapy, physically and mentally handicapped individuals, systemic diseases with oral manifestations such as leukaemia. More recent interest in chlorhexidine has resulted from the delivery of compounds subgingivally in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Such methods have extended the use of chlorhexidine into areas inaccessible to the action of antimicrobial drugs delivered locally by conventional means, such as tooth brushing or mouth rinsing. Available evidence suggests that chlorhexidine may not be as effective as some antimicrobial drugs whose activity is more specific for those organisms considered particularly pathogenic to the periodontal tissues.

Comparison of hypertonic saline and chlorhexidine mouthrinses after the inverse bevel flap procedure

THE VALUE OF periodontal dressings after periodontal surgery has been questioned. This study further evaluated chlorhexidine as a possible alternative. A group of nine patients requiring comparable bilateral inverse bevel flap procedures underwent preoperative oral hygiene instruction and scaling. Immediately before surgery and up to 3 months postoperatively, clinical records of plaque index, pocket depths and sulcus bleeding index were made. Records were taken of patients' postoperative discomfort and preferences. During the 1st postoperative week either a 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate or a 1% saline mouthrinse was prescribed. Plaque accumulation and sulcus bleeding were significantly reduced on the sides treated with chlorhexidine. Significant reductions in pocket depths were recorded for both groups but there were not differences between treatments. Less postoperative discomfort was experienced with chlorhexidine, although the difference was not significant. Five patients preferred chlorhexidine, one saline, and three had no preferences. These and previous results suggest that a periodontal dressing is unnecessary or even undesirable after the inverse bevel flap procedure, and may be usefully replaced by a suitable antiplaque agent.