An approach to efficacy screening of mouthrinses: studies on a group of French products (II). Inhibition of salivary bacteria and plaque in vivo

Comparing the effect of 0.06% -, 0.12% and 0.2% Chlorhexidine on plaque, bleeding and side effects in an experimental gingivitis model: a parallel group, double masked randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine is the gold standard of dental plaque prevention. The aim of the present study was to compare the plaque and gingivitis inhibiting effect of commercial products containing 0.2%, 0.12% and 0.06% chlorhexidine in a modified experimental gingivitis model.

METHODS

In three groups of healthy volunteers, experimental gingivitis was induced and monitored over 21 days and simultaneously treated with the commercial solutions containing 0.2%, 0.12% and 0.06% chlorhexidine. The maxillary right quadrant of each individual received mouthwash only, whereas the maxillary left quadrant was subject to both rinsing and mechanical oral hygiene. Compliance and side effects were monitored at days 7, 14, and 21. Plaque and gingivitis scores were obtained at baseline and day 21.

RESULTS

The commercial mouthwash containing 0.2% chlorhexidine resulted in statistically significantly lower plaque scores than the 0.12 and 0.06% mouthwashes after 21 days use, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between the effects of the two latter.

CONCLUSION

A commercially available mouthwash containing 0.2% chlorhexidine had statistically significant better effect in preventing dental plaque than the 0.12% and 0.06% solutions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02911766 . Registration date: September 9th 2016.

Evaluation of new chlorhexidine- and cetylpyridinium chloride-based mouthrinse formulations adjunctive to scaling and root planing: pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of two newly formulated chlorhexidine (CHX) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinses after scaling and root planing (SRP) in terms of clinical, microbiological, patient-based variables and adverse events, with a positive control with the same active components, already marketed and tested.

METHODS

A pilot, randomized clinical trial, double-blind, parallel design with 1-month follow-up was conducted. Chronic periodontitis patients requiring non-surgical periodontal therapy were enrolled and randomly assigned to: (i) SRP and test-1 (new reformulation: 0.12% CHX and 0.05% CPC); (ii) SRP and test-2 (new formulation: 0.03% CHX and 0.05% CPC); or (iii) SRP and positive control (commercial product: 0.12% CHX and 0.05% CPC). All variables were evaluated at baseline and 1 month after SRP. Quantitative variables were compared by means of anova or Kruskal-Wallis test and qualitative variables by chi-square or McNemar tests.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (10 per group) were included. After 1 month, there were significant differences among groups in plaque levels (P = 0.016) as test-1 showed less sites with plaque than test-2 (31.15% [standard error-SE 2.21%] versus 49.39% [SE 4.60%), respectively). No significant differences were found for global patient perception of the product or in adverse effects. Test groups showed better results in levels and proportions (P = 0.022) of Capnocytophaga spp.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this pilot study, it can be concluded that the newly formulated 0.12% CHX and 0.05% CPC mouthrinse showed larger plaque level reductions, without showing more adverse effects, when compared to the other two mouthrinses, after SRP.

Inhibition of de novo plaque growth by a new 0.03 % chlorhexidine mouth rinse formulation applying a non-brushing model: a randomized, double blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the plaque inhibitory effect of a new 0.03 % chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) and 0.05 % cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinse formulation and to explore patients' experience and side effects after its use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This short-term, randomized, double blind, parallel, clinical trial enrolled 150 periodontally healthy patients. These volunteers were randomly allocated to one of following mouthrinse groups (n = 50/group): 0.12 % CHX + 0.05 % CPC (Perio-Aid® Treatment alcohol-free), 0.03 % CHX + 0.05 % CPC new test formulation or to the placebo group. Clinical parameters (plaque, gingival, and stain indexes) and microbiological samples were taken at baseline, before supragingival cleaning, and after 4 days of undisturbed plaque growth, rinsing twice/day with one of the mouthrinses.

RESULTS

Plaque reduction was similar for the 0.12 % CHX (-0.52 ± 0.55) and 0.03 % CHX (-0.47 ± 0.49) groups. Both showed significant reductions in plaque accumulation compared to the placebo (p < 0.001). The new formulation had less of a negative impact on taste perception when compared to the 0.12 % CHX solution. The new CHX mouthrinse was also able to control bacterial loads and reduce some periodontopathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicated that the new 0.03 % CHX + 0.05 % CPC formulation exerted clinical efficacy similar to that achieved by an already-marketed 0.12 % CHX + 0.05 % CPC mouthrinse, but with slightly fewer side effects.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Lower CHX mouthrinse formulations could be effective in the inhibition of plaque regrowth with reduced unpleasant subjective side effects.

Short-term side effects of 0.2% alcohol-free chlorhexidine mouthrinse in geriatric patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of a 0.2% alcohol-free chlorhexidine mouthwash applied twice a day during 30 days in patients over 65 years of age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was made of 70 denture wearers over 65 years of age. The study subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two groups (chlorhexidine or placebo). The patients were instructed to complete a first whitening phase with a duration of 1 week, followed by a 30-day treatment period. The following data were collected: Silness and Löe plaque index, gingival index, the number of colony-forming units of Candida albicans at the start and end of treatment and the possible adverse effects of chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in the evolution of the Silness and Löe plaque index and gingival index in the two groups, as well as in the number of colony-forming units of C. albicans between the start and end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the clinical benefits of antiplaque, antigingivitis mouthrinses in both study groups.

Susceptibilities of Candida albicans mouth isolates to antifungal agents, essentials oils and mouth rinses

Forty Candida albicans strains isolated from patient's mouth with fixed orthodontic appliances were analyzed to their susceptibilities to antifungal agents, mouth rinses and essential oils. Susceptibility to fluconazole, econazole, miconazole and ketoconazole, amphotericin B and nystatin was assessed by the disk diffusion (DD) method based on the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M44-A protocol, and by Etest (fluconazole and amphotericin B). The susceptibilities to mouth rinses and essential oils were also determined by the DD technique. All isolates tested were susceptible (S) to amphotericin B, nystatin and fluconazole. The overall concordance between the DD and the Etest was 100% for amphotericin and fluconazole. One isolate was resistant to econazole (2.5%) and the other to ketoconazole (2.5%). Econazole and ketoconazole had the highest percentages of susceptible dose dependent (SDD), 55 and 95%, respectively. Regarding to the susceptibility isolates profile, seven phenotypes were detected, and the 3 more represented (90% of the isolates) of them were SDD to one, two or three azoles. The study of mouth rinses showed a high variability of efficacy against C. albicans. The results showed that the isolates susceptibility to essential oils differed (P < 0.05). The profile activity was: cinnamon > laurel > mint > eucalyptus > rosemary > lemon > myrrh > tangerine. The main finding was that the susceptibility to cinnamon and laurel varied among the three more representative antifungal phenotypes (P < 0.05). The susceptibility of econazole-SDD isolates to cinnamon and lemon was higher than those of the econazole-S yeasts (P < 0.05). In contrast, econazole-SDD isolates were less affected by laurel than econazole-S counterparts (P < 0.05).

In vivo substantivity of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on salivary bacteria

The in vivo antimicrobial activity of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) on the salivary flora up to 7 h after its application, using epifluorescence microscopy with the SYTO 9/propidium iodide dual staining, was evaluated. Fifteen volunteers performed a single mouthrinse with sterile water (SM-water), a single mouthrinse with 0.12% CHX (0.12% SM-CHX) and a single and double mouthrinse with 0.2% CHX (0.2% SM-CHX and 0.2% DM-CHX). Samples of saliva were taken at 30 s, and 1, 3, 5, and 7 h after each application. In comparison with SM-water, 0.2% CHX (SM and DM) showed a significant antibacterial effect up to 7 h after the mouthrinse, whereas this effect only persisted up to 5 h after the 0.12% SM-CHX mouthrinse. On comparing the two concentrations of CHX, significantly higher percentages of bacterial vitality were observed in all the saliva samples after the use of 0.12% CHX than after 0.2% CHX. On comparison of the 0.2% SM-CHX and 0.2% DM-CHX, significantly higher percentages of live bacteria were observed in the saliva samples taken at 1, 3, 5, and 7 h after the single mouthrinse compared with the double mouthrinse. The 0.2% CHX mouthrinse had the greatest antimicrobial activity on the salivary flora up to 7 h after its application, with a progressive recovery in bacterial vitality. The differences observed with respect to the 0.12% CHX mouthrinse demonstrate the influence of the concentration on its immediate antimicrobial activity and substantivity.

Effect of two new chlorhexidine mouthrinses on the development of dental plaque, gingivitis, and discolouration. A randomized, investigator-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-week experimental gingivitis study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this experimental gingivitis study was to assess the efficacy and safety of two new chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ninety volunteers participated in this investigator-blind, randomized, clinical-controlled trial in parallel groups. During the treatment period, no oral hygiene measures except rinsing with non-alcoholic 0.2% CHX or 0.2% CHX/0.055% sodium fluoride mouthrinses, a positive control, or a negative control were permitted. The primary parameter was the gingival index; the secondary parameters were plaque index, discolouration index, and bleeding on probing. Clinical examinations were conducted 14 days before the start of the study, at baseline, and after 7, 14, and 21 days. The two sample t-test, anova, and ancova were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

No difference in efficacy was found between the two new CHX formulations and the positive control. On day 21, statistically significantly less gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation compared with placebo were observed. Besides discolouration and taste irritations, no adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

The two new CHX mouthrinses were able to inhibit plaque re-growth and gingivitis. Neither the omission of alcohol nor the supplementation with sodium fluoride had weakened the clinical efficacy of CHX with respect to the analysed clinical parameters.

Multiple Exposures to Chlorhexidine and Xylitol: Adhesion and Biofilm Formation by Streptococcus mutans

Growing evidence from clinical studies suggests that mothers using xylitol gums or lozenges have decreased levels of Streptococcus mutans (SM) and do not transmit these cariogenic bacteria as readily to their children. To begin to determine mechanisms for these clinical findings and to explore potential synergism of antimicrobial combinations, we studied the effect of multiple exposures of chlorhexidine (CHX) combined with copper gluconate (CG) or zinc gluconate (ZG) followed by xylitol (XYL) on the ability of SM to adhere and form biofilms. Cell suspensions of SM were exposed two times to CHX; CG; CHX plus CG; ZG; and CHX plus ZG, and then four times to XYL. Control cells were exposed six times to water or XYL or received no treatment. For biofilm assessment, glass slides were inoculated with treated cells, and numbers of bacteria were enumerated after 48 hours of incubation. To assess the ability of SM to adhere, microtiter plate wells coated with primary S. sanguinis biofilms grown in sucrose were inoculated with treated SM, and adhesion was determined. Cells exposed to CHX-XYL combinations exhibited significant but transient inhibition of growth. The multiple-exposure regimen groups showed significant decreases in the ability of SM to form biofilms (P < 0.05). However, the CHX-XYL group exhibited a much greater effect than the other treatment groups (P < 0.001). Adhesion studies revealed that none of the multiple-exposure regimens had a significant effect on adhesion of SM to primary biofilms of S. sanguinis. We concluded that significant inhibition of SM growth and subsequent inability to grow as biofilms in the presence of sucrose occurs after a staggered exposure regimen to CHX initially and then to XYL. This may help explain the clinical data showing the decreased levels of SM in mothers treated with CHX and XYL.

Influence of Additional Active Ingredients on the Effectiveness of Non-Alcoholic Chlorhexidine Mouthwashes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Non-alcoholic chlorhexidine mouthwashes are equally effective and have fewer potential risks than hydroalcoholic solutions. Nowadays, other active ingredients are added to these mouthwashes in an attempt to improve their effectiveness and reduce side effects. Following an experimental gingivitis model, this study examined three non-alcoholic commercial mouthwashes having 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) in common.

METHODS

Using a double masked, cross-over design, 30 subjects underwent three consecutive experimental phases with three mouthwashes: CHX, CHX + 0.05% sodium fluoride (CHXNaF), and CHX + 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride (CHX-CPC). In each one of these 21-day phases, the subjects discontinued all oral hygiene measures and were treated exclusively with the experimental mouthwash randomly assigned (an oral rinse twice a day). Each experimental phase was preceded by a 14-day washout period. Levels of gingivitis, dental plaque, supragingival calculus, and dental staining were assessed at baseline and end (day 21) of experimental phases.

RESULTS

The evolution of gingival and dental staining indices did not show statistically significant differences between the treatments. Differences were noticed in the plaque index (P = 0.0002), with CHX-NaF the treatment with the greatest increase. Differences were also observed in the supragingival calculus index (P = 0.0136), with CHX-CPC showing a smaller increase. Tongue staining was more frequent with CHX-CPC (P = 0.0141).

CONCLUSION

In non-alcoholic 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwashes, the addition of other active ingredients does not produce beneficial effects, but may even reduce the antiplaque effectiveness or increase tongue staining.

Efficacy of a 0.15% benzydamine hydrochloride and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride mouth rinse on 4-day de novo plaque formation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a mouth-rinse formulation combining benzydamine hydrochloride and cetylpyridinium chloride (BNZ+CPC) in preventing de novo plaque formation, in comparison with CPC and placebo mouth rinses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a controlled, observer-blind, cross-over study. In this model of plaque re-growth, subjects received a session of oral prophylaxis and were directed to withdraw oral hygiene measures for the next 4 days, using only the mouth rinse assigned. The outcome parameters were the plaque index (PlI) and gingival index (GI). In addition, microbiological evaluation of the subgingival microflora, by means of culture, was performed, as well as patient-based variables. Data analysis was carried out using anova for Latin-square design.

RESULTS

The analysis of variance showed a significant statistical difference between the BNZ+CPC association and placebo (p<0.0001). No differences between CPC and placebo were detected considering multiple comparisons between treatments. The 90% confidence interval of the differences between BNZ+CPC and CPC showed no equivalence between treatments, being the PlI lower in the BNZ+CPC group. No significant difference between groups in GI was observed. Mean anaerobic colony-forming units (CFU) demonstrated a significant increase between visits in all groups (p<0.001) and differences among groups were not significant. Subjects treated with BNZ+CPC frequently reported "tingling mouth" and "numbness mouth".

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the study model, the BNZ+CPC combination showed a statistically significant plaque-inhibitory capacity, as compared with the placebo mouth rinse, and an additive effect as compared with CPC. No relevant clinical or microbiological adverse effects were detected.

A non-staining chlorhexidine mouthwash? Probably not: a study in vitro

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Tooth staining is a common side effect of chlorhexidine mouth rinses and caused by the interaction of the di-cationic antiseptic with dietary chromogens. A product is now available, which claims an anti-discolouration system (ADS) with one clinical study in support. This study in vitro aims to determine whether two ADS rinses do or do not bind dietary chromogens.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Optically clear acrylic specimens were cycled through human saliva (2 min), one of the three chlorhexidine rinses (two ADS and a positive control) (2 min) or water and then soaked in tea (60 min). After each cycle the optical density (OD) of specimens were read on a UV/visible spectrophotometer. The exit point was the cycle at which OD was >2.0.

RESULTS

All three rinses exceeded OD 2 at 11 cycles and there was no significant difference in staining for the ADS rinses compared with the positive control rinse.

CONCLUSION

Based on extensive literature for the correlation of this test in vitro with chlorhexidine anti-plaque activity and propensity to stain in vivo these ADS rinses will have the same anti-plaque efficacy and potential to cause stain as established chlorhexidine rinse products.

Plaque inhibition of two commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution is still "the leading oral antiseptic" for controlling gingivitis. Side effects, however, limit the acceptability to users and the long-term employment of a 0.2% CHX antiseptic in preventive dentistry. This stimulated the development of new formulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect on plaque inhibition and taste perception of two commercially available mouthrinses (0.12% CHX non-alcohol base with 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride (Cpc) versus 0.2% CHX alcohol base).

METHODS

The study was designed as a single-blind, randomized two group parallel experiment, to compare two different commercially available mouthrinses, during a 3-day plaque accumulation model. Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received a thorough dental prophylaxis at the beginning of the test period. Over a 72-h experimental non-brushing period, during which subjects abstained from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene, one group (test) used a 15 ml alcohol free 0.12% CHX (=18 mg) mouthrinse on a Cpc base (Perioaid), CHX plus sign in circleCpc), twice daily for 30 s. The other group (control) used a 10 ml 0.2% CHX (=20 mg) mouthrinse on an 11.8% ethanol alcohol base (Corsodyl), CHX plus sign in circleAlc), twice daily for 60 s. After 72 h of plaque formation, the amount of plaque was evaluated. By the use of visual analogue scale, the subjects were asked for their appreciation of the taste of the mouthrinse they had used.

RESULTS

The mean plaque index for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group was 0.97 and for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group 0.78. After 72 h of non-brushing, there was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two groups. The answers to the questions (taste perception and after-taste) showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for taste appreciation on a scale from very bad to very good taste (0-10) were 5.92 for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group and 4.10 for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group (p=0.02). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for the after-taste on a scale from very short to very long (0-10) were 7.24 for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group and 5.38 for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present study design, it can be concluded that rinsing with a 0.12% CHX mouthrinse on a non-alcohol base with 0.05% Cpc (Perio-Aid) is not significantly different from rinsing with a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse on an alcohol base (Corsodyl). It appears that the subjects appreciated the taste of the non-alcohol CHX solution better but the after-taste of the rinse remained longer in the mouth.

Comparative effects of different chlorhexidine mouth-rinse formulations on volatile sulphur compounds and salivary bacterial counts

AIM

To compare five different commercial mouth rinses with chlorhexidine (CHX) with respect to their anti-halitosis effect and anti-microbial activity on salivary bacterial counts, following a standardised research protocol. And secondly, to validate the study model proposed in the evaluation of patients suffering from halitosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten volunteers, with a healthy oral status, were enrolled in a double-blind, cross-over design, using sterile saline as negative control and five CHX-containing mouth rinses: 0.12% CHX alone (CHX+NO), plus alcohol (CHX+ALC), plus 0.05% cetylpiridinium chloride (CHX+CPC), plus sodium fluoride (CHX+NaF), and 0.05% CHX plus 0.05% CPC, plus 0.14% zinc lactate (CHX+Zn). The levels of whole-mouth volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) were measured by means of a sulphide monitor at baseline, 1 and 5 h after rinsing with the assigned product. Baseline measurements also included an organoleptic assessment and the recording of the tongue-coating index. Aerobic and anaerobic salivary bacterial counts were also obtained by collecting unstimulated saliva samples at the same evaluation times, and processed by culturing techniques. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate whether significant differences existed among groups, at each evaluation point, or in changes between evaluations.

RESULTS

No significant differences were detected at baseline, with VSC levels ranging between 190 and 227 parts per billion (p.p.b.) After rinsing, VSC levels were reduced with all products (except saline), after 1 h. Significant differences at 1 h were detected (p=0.04), corresponding to a lower amount of p.p.b. (109) in (CHX+Zn) as compared with the other groups (except CHX+NO). At 5 h, VSC levels were lower for CHX+CPC and CHX+Zn (155 and 169, respectively), while the other groups showed levels higher than 220 p.p.b. With respect to aerobic salivary bacterial counts, CHX+CPC demonstrated the lowest percentage of survival (6% after 1 h and 18% after 5 h). For anaerobic bacterial counts, again CHX+CPC demonstrated the lowest percentage of survival (10% at 1 h and 23% at 5 h), together with CHX+ALC (18% of survival at 5 h). However, salivary counts and VSCs were only significantly correlated at baseline, but not after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Important differences can be expected from different CHX formulations, in relation to both their anti-halitosis effect and anti-microbial activity in saliva. Formulations that combine CHX and CPC achieved the best results, and a formulation combining CHX with NaF resulted in the poorest.

Differences in antimicrobial activity of four commercial 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse formulations: an in vitro contact test and salivary bacterial counts study

AIM

To evaluate the in vitro and in vivo antimicrobial activity of four commercial 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The in vitro antimicrobial activity test consisted in a modified contact test where 20 selected bacterial species were tested during 1 min with each test product. After the contact, the inoculum was cultured, and the results were expressed in terms of survival/resistance and the percentage of survival as compared to a saline control. The in vivo test consisted of a double-blind, randomized, crossover salivary bacterial counts study. 10 volunteers rinsed during 1 min with each tested product. Saliva samples were obtained before rinsing, and after 5 min, and 1, 3, 5 and 7 h. These samples were cultured both aerobically and anaerobically. Percentages of survival, in regard to baseline, were calculated for each time point. Comparisons among products were tested using anova and selected paired t-test.

RESULTS

The in vitro contact test showed no survival in any tested species with CHX+CPC, while three species (Lactobacillus casei, Streptococcus mitis and Peptostreptococcus micros) were resistant to the other three products. CHX and CHX+NaF demonstrated additional resistant species (three and four species, respectively). The in vivo salivary bacterial counts test showed higher reductions of CHX+CPC and CHX+ALC in aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, lasting for 5 h. Significant differences were detected at multiple time points, when these two products were compared both with the control and the other tested products.

CONCLUSION

Important differences in activity, among 0.12% CHX products, were detected by both in vitro and in vivo tests. The formulation with alcohol was more active than those without alcohol, excepting the formulation with CHX+CPC, in which the reformulation and addition of CPC not only compensate but rather increase the antimicrobial activity.

An in vitro evaluation of the availability of cetylpyridinium chloride and chlorhexidine in some commercially available mouthrinse products

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative activity of mouthrinses containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and chlorhexidine using the propensity to cause extrinsic staining in vitro as the outcome variable.

METHODS

Saliva-coated clear acrylic specimens were exposed to cyclical staining regimens of either CPC or chlorhexidine followed by tea. Water and 0.2% chlorhexidine were used as negative and positive controls respectively. Staining cycles were repeated until an optical density of > 2 was reached by one of the products.

RESULTS

For CPC there was a highly significant difference in staining between the products. Two CPC products performed numerically little better than water. For the chlorhexidine products the 0.2% formulation produced the most staining although little more than the UK version of the 0.1% rinse. The French 0.1% rinse produced by the same manufacturer as the UK formulation showed markedly reduced staining potential although significantly greater than water.

CONCLUSION

This study, supported by previous in vitro and in vivo studies, indicates discrepancies in the availability of CPC and chlorhexidine in some mouthrinse products. Importantly, this may have an effect on the potential of some rinses to provide the expected plaque inhibitory activity.

The efficacy of amine fluoride/stannous fluoride in the suppression of morning breath odour

BACKGROUND

Breath odour is a complaint encountered worldwide, often linked to microbial overload in the oral cavity. This double blind, crossover, randomised study assessed the efficacy of several antiseptic mouthrinses or slurry vs. a control solution in the prevention of morning bad breath during an experimental period of 7 days without mechanical plaque control.

METHODS

Sixteen dental students with a healthy periodontium abolished, after a thorough professional cleaning, all means of mechanical plaque control during five experimental periods of 7 days, interleaved by washout periods of at least 3 weeks. During each experimental period, as the only oral hygiene measure, the students rinsed twice a day with one of the following formulations (in a randomised order): a 0.2% chlorhexidine-alcohol mouthrinse (CHX-Alc), a 0.05% CHX + 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride + 0.14% zinc lactate mouthrinse (CHX-CPC-Zn), an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (125 ppm F-/125 ppm F-) containing mouthrinse (AmF/SnF2Mr), a slurry of a tooth paste (AmF/SnF2Sl) containing amine fluoride (350 ppm F-) and stannous fluoride (1050 ppm F-) and a placebo solution (placebo). At days 0, 3 and 7, morning breath was scored via VSC level measurements of the mouth air, and organoleptic ratings of the mouth air and tongue coating. At the same visits both the degree of gingival inflammation and the de novo plaque formation were rated. At the end of each period a questionnaire for subjective ratings was completed and microbiological samples were taken from the tongue dorsum, the saliva and the supragingival plaque for anaerobic and aerobic culturing.

RESULTS

Although oral hygiene during the experimental periods was limited to rinsing, bad breath parameters systematically improved (P < 0.001) with the three mouthrinses (CHX-Alc, CHX-CPC-Zn, AmF/SnF2Mr), with a superiority of the CHX-CPC-Zn solution when only VSC values were considered (P < 0.003). The AmF/SnF2 slurry and the placebo solution showed only minor changes with time. The three mouthrinses reduced significantly (P < 0.001) the bacterial load (aerobic & anaerobic) in the saliva (>or= 0.5 log reduction with a superiority (P < 0.005) for the CHX-Alc when compared to the two others). Changes in the bacterial load on the tongue dorsum could only be detected for the CHX-Alc solution (0.5 log). The antibacterial effect of the placebo solution and the slurry were negligible. The composition of microflora on the other hand did not reveal significant changes. The de novo supragingival plaque formation was significantly (P < 0.05) inhibited by the three mouthrinses with a slight superiority for the CHX-Alc solution. The degree of gingival inflammation at day 7 remained low (< 0.16) for all products. The CHX-Alc solution scored significantly worse for the subjective evaluation (questionnaires) concerning taste and sensitivity of tongue).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that morning breath odour can be successfully reduced by the sole twice daily use of CHX-Alc, CHX-CPC-Zn or AmF/SnF2Mr mouthrinses, which all significantly reduced the bacterial load in the saliva and retarded the de novo plaque formation.

The effect of a polyhexamethylene biguanide mouthrinse compared to an essential oil rinse and a chlorhexidine rinse on bacterial counts and 4-day plaque regrowth

OBJECTIVES

For various clinical applications, polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride (PHMB) has been used for many years as an antiseptic in medicine. Recently, a 0.04% PHMB mouthwash was shown to inhibit plaque regrowth and to reduce oral bacterial counts. In this study, a 0.12% PHMB mouthrinse (A) was compared with a negative control placebo rinse (10% ethanol, flavour) (B), a positive control 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse (C), and a commercially available mouthrinse containing essential oils (Listerine) (D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a double-blind, randomised 4-replicate 4 x 4 Latin square cross-over design in which plaque regrowth was measured. The in vivo antibacterial effect was assessed by taking bacterial counts from the tooth surface and mucosa 4 h after the first rinse with the preparations on day 1 and prior to the clinical examination on day 5. 16 volunteers participated and, on day 1 of each study period, were rendered plaque-free, ceased toothcleaning, and rinsed 2x daily with the allocated mouthrinse. On day 5, plaque was scored and smears were collected according to the protocol. Washout periods were 9 days. Data were analysed using ANOVA with Bonferroni HSD adjustment for multiple comparisons (significance level alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

The 0.12% PHMB mouthrinse (A) was significantly more effective in inhibiting plaque than the placebo (B) but no significant differences could be observed between A and 0.12% chlorhexidine (C), or between A and Listerine (D). Bacterial count reductions on the tooth surface with PHMB (A) were significantly greater compared to the placebo (B) after 4 h and significantly greater compared to B and D after 5 days. Chlorhexidine (C) was more effective than A after 5 days. On the mucosa, chlorhexidine (C) was significantly more effective in reducing bacterial counts than the other 3 treatments at both time points investigated. PHMB (A) was significantly more effective in reducing bacterial counts than the placebo (B) after 4 h and after 5 days, and than D after 4 h.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with a previous study, a PHMB mouthrinse was shown to inhibit plaque recolonisation and to reduce oral bacterial counts, indicating that PHMB may find applications in the prevention of plaque-associated diseases.

Studies on the effect of polyvinyl pyrrolidone on the activity of chlorhexidine mouthrinses: plaque and stain

BACKGROUND, AIMS

Polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) was shown in vitro to reduce chlorhexidine induced, dietary staining without affecting the uptake of the antiseptic to the test substrate. The aim of these studies in vivo was to determine whether PVP affected plaque and dietary staining by a low concentration chlorhexidine rinse.

METHODS

The plaque and stain studies used a double blind, randomised 6, treatment crossover design involving healthy subjects with a high standard of oral hygiene and gingival health. The rinse formulations under test were: (A) aqueous alcohol (placebo control), (B) 0.03% chlorhexidine, (C) 0.06% chlorhexidine, (D) 0.06% chlorhexidine+1.2% PVP, (E) 0.06% chlorhexidine+5% PVP, (F) 0.06% chlorhexidine+10% PVP. In the plaque study, on day 1 of each period, subjects were rendered plaque free and then rinsed with 15 ml of the test rinse for 60 s. No further tooth cleaning was performed and subjects returned 24 h later for plaque scoring by area. In the stain study, on day 1 of each period, the tongue and teeth of each subject were rendered stain free. Subjects then rinsed under supervision for 60 s with 15 ml of the allocated rinse 8 x a day between 09:00 h and 17:00 h for 3 days. Immediately after each rinse with the test formulation, subjects rinsed for 120 s with 15 ml of warm black tea. Subjects were requested to also drink at least 5 cups of tea or coffee per day. On day 4, stain was scored by area and intensity from designated teeth and dorsum of the tongue. Washout periods were at least 7 days in both studies.

RESULTS

Plaque areas were greatest with placebo and least with 0.06% chlorhexidine. Plaque scores increased with increasing concentrations of PVP in the 0.06% chlorhexidine rinse and were significantly higher than 0.06% chlorhexidine without PVP rinse. Tooth stain areas were comparable for placebo, 0.03% and 0.06% chlorhexidine rinses, but significantly reduced with the PVP/chlorhexidine rinses compared to the 0.06% chlorhexidine rinse. Tooth stain intensity was significantly increased with 0.06% chlorhexidine rinses compared to placebo and chlorhexidine/PVP rinses. Tongue stain area and intensity were significantly reduced with 5% and 10% PVP/chlorhexidine rinses compared to 0.06% chlorhexidine rinse.

CONCLUSION

PVP, at the concentrations tested, reduced the stain propensity of a 0.06% chlorhexidine rinse but at the expense of some loss of plaque inhibition.

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.

Effect of a polyhexamethylene biguanide mouthrinse on bacterial counts and plaque

OBJECTIVES

For various clinical applications, polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) has been used for many years as an antiseptic in medicine. Little is known, however, of its antibacterial activity in the oral cavity and its ability to inhibit plaque formation. In this study, a 0.04% PHMB mouthrinse (A) was compared with a negative control placebo rinse (10% ethanol, flavour) (B) and 2 positive control chlorhexidine rinses, one of which was a 0.12% aqueous solution (C) and the other a commercially available mouthrinse (Skinsept mucosa) diluted to a chlorhexidine concentration of 0.12% (D).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was a double-blind, randomised 4-replicate 4 x 4 Latin square cross-over design. Plaque regrowth was assessed with the Turesky et al. modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index. The in vivo antibacterial effect was assessed by taking bacterial counts from the tooth surface (smears from the lingual surface of 16) and mucosa (smears from the buccal mucosa) 4 h after the 1st rinse with the preparations on day 1 and prior to the clinical examination on day 5. 16 volunteers participated, and on day 1 of each study period were rendered plaque-free, ceased toothcleaning, and rinsed 2x daily with the allocated mouthrinse. On day 5, plaque was scored and smears were collected according to the protocol. Washout periods were 9 days. Data were analysed using ANOVA with Tukey HSD adjustment for multiple comparisons (significance level alpha=0.05).

RESULTS

Mouthrinses A, C, and D were significantly more effective in inhibiting plaque than the placebo (B). Mouthrinse C was significantly better than mouthrinses A and D, while mouthrinses D and A were equally effective in inhibiting plaque. Bacterial count reductions on the tooth surface with mouthrinse C were significantly greater compared to mouthrinse A and the placebo (B). The reduction of bacterial counts on the mucosa with C was significantly greater than with A and B after 4 h and significantly greater than with A, B and D after 5 days. Mouthrinse A reduced bacteria on the mucosa significantly more effectively than the placebo (B) after 4 h and 5 days, while mouthrinse D was more effective than the placebo (B) after 4 h.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that a 0.04% PHMB mouthwash inhibits plaque regrowth and reduces oral bacterial counts, and may be used in preventive applications in the oral cavity.

The effect of polyvinyl pyrrolidone on the clinical activity of 0.09% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) added to a chlorhexidine rinse reduced extrinsic dental stain but at the expense of a reduction in plaque inhibitory activity. This effect appeared due to a reduction in the effective chlorhexidine dose to levels where dose response studies show plaque inhibition falls off rapidly. The aim of these 2 clinical studies was to determine if PVP could be added to chlorhexidine rinses to maintain efficacy and reduce staining.

METHOD

Study 1 involved 42 healthy dentate volunteers and was a blind, randomised, 7 treatment, crossover design balanced for residual effects. The rinses were: 1. 0.09% chlorhexidine to which was added, 2. 1% PVP, 3. 3% PVP, 4. 5% PVP, 5. 7% PVP, 6. Placebo, 7. Essential oil product. Rinses were used 2x on day one of each period after a prophylaxis. Subjects suspended tooth cleaning for 24 h and were then scored for plaque area. Study 2 used the experimental gingivitis model, involved 24 healthy dentate subjects and was a blind, randomised, 3 treatment, crossover design balanced for residual effects. The rinses were 1. 0.2% chlorhexidine, 2. 0.2% chlorhexidine/10% PVP, 3. Placebo. At baseline and the end of each study period subjects were rendered plaque, stain and calculus free, suspended oral hygiene and rinsed 2x per day. Plaque, gingivitis and stain were scored at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 weeks. Calculus was scored at baseline and 3 weeks.

RESULTS

Study 1: Buccal plaque scores were significantly lower with all rinses compared to placebo. Also all buccal plaque scores were significantly lower with chlorhexidine and chlorhexidine/PVP rinses compared to the essential oil/phenolic rinse. There were no significant differences between the chlorhexidine rinse and the chlorhexidine/PVP rinses. Analyses for buccal and lingual plaque combined produced, with one exception, the same results for rinse comparisons as for buccal plaque alone. Thus the essential oil/phenolic rinse just failed to reach significance compared to placebo. Study 2: Plaque and gingivitis scores were significantly lower with positive control and test rinses compared to placebo but with no difference between these rinses. Tooth and tongue stain was significantly higher with the positive control and test rinses compared to placebo but not significantly different between these 2 rinses. Calculus scores were not significantly different between the three study rinses.

CONCLUSION

Taken with previous data, the balance of evidence does not support PVP as an inhibitor of staining associated with chlorhexidine. These data are further evidence that chlorhexidine oral hygiene products, which, do not or claim not to cause staining, are most probably lacking efficacy.

Effect of different mouthrinses on morning breath

BACKGROUND

Morning breath odor is an often-encountered complaint. This double-blind, crossover, randomized study aimed to examine the bad breath-inhibiting effect of 3 commercially available mouthrinses on morning halitosis during an experimental period of 12 days without mechanical plaque control.

METHODS

Twelve medical students with a healthy periodontium refrained from all means of mechanical plaque control during 3 experimental periods of 12 days (with intervening washout periods of at least 3 weeks). A professional oral cleaning preceded each period. During each experimental period, as the only oral hygiene measure allowed, the students rinsed twice a day with one of the following formulations in a randomized order: CHX-Alc (a 0.2% chlorhexidine [CHX] solution); CHX-NaF (CHX 0.12% plus sodium fluoride 0.05%); or CHX-CPC-Zn (CHX 0.05% plus cetylpyridinium chloride 0.05% plus zinc lactate 0.14%). After 12 days, morning breath was scored via volatile sulfur compound (VSC) level measurements of the mouth air and organoleptic ratings of the mouth air, the expired air, and a scraping of the tongue coating. At the 12-day visit, a questionnaire (subjective ratings) was completed and samples taken from both the tongue coating and the saliva for anaerobic and aerobic culturing and vitality staining. The de novo supragingival plaque formation was also recorded. All parameters were correlated with the baseline registrations.

RESULTS

Although oral hygiene during the 3 experimental periods was limited to oral rinses, bad breath parameters systematically improved, with the exception of a slight increase in VSC levels while using CHX-Alc, a finding which was associated with the direct influence of the CHX on the sulfide monitor. The oral microbial load after the use of CHX-NaF remained unchanged, while for the CHX-Alc and CHX-CPC-Zn, significant reductions in both aerobic and anaerobic colony forming units (CFU)/ml were noticed in comparison with baseline data for both tongue coating and saliva samples. The composition of microflora, on the other hand, did not reveal significant changes. The supragingival plaque formation was inhibited, in descending order, by CHX-Alc, CHX-CPC-Zn, and CHX-NaF. The subjective scores for the rinses indicated a higher appreciation for CHX-CPC-Alc and CHX-NaF because of a better taste and fewer side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that morning halitosis can be successfully reduced via daily use of mouthrinses. CHX-Alc and CHX-CPC-Zn mouthrinses result in a significant reduction of the microbial load of tongue and saliva.

The clinical and microbiological effects of a novel acidified sodium chlorite mouthrinse on oral bacterial mucosal infections

Acidified sodium chlorite mouthrinses have been shown to have equivalent anti-plaque activity to those containing chlorhexidine, the current 'gold standard'. In this study, sodium chlorite mouthrinses (ASC) acidified with either malic or gluconic acids were compared to each other and with a chlorhexidine rinse and sterile water for their effect on salivary bacterial counts. Sixteen subjects participated in the study, which had a cross-over Latin square design. In a second study, a sodium chlorite/gluconic acid rinse was compared with chlorhexidine for its clinical and microbiological effects in 36 patients with oral mucosal infections. The sodium chlorite rinses acidified with malic and gluconic acids and the chlorhexidine rinse caused significant reductions in salivary bacterial counts up to 7 h after a single rinse compared with water. There were no significant differences between the three active treatments. In the mucosal infection study, there was a significant reduction in erythema in the chlorhexidine group compared with the ASC group. Patients who received the ASC rinse reported significantly less discomfort following treatment than those receiving the chlorhexidine rinse. Staphylococcus aureus counts were significantly reduced in the group who received the sodium chlorite rinse. There were no other significant differences between the treatments. ASC appears to be an effective alternative to chlorhexidine mouthrinse.

The effect of toothpaste on the propensity of chlorhexidine and cetyl pyridinium chloride to produce staining in vitro: a possible predictor of inactivation

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cationic antiseptics such as chlorhexidine (CHX) and cetyl pyridinium chloride (CPC) interact with dietary chromogens to produce extrinsic stain, and this can be used as a measure of activity of products. The aim of these studies in vitro was to determine if toothpaste influenced the tea staining effects of CHX and CPC as a predictor of action in vivo.

METHOD

Clear acrylic specimens were soaked in pooled human saliva followed by sequential 2-min soaks in pairs of agents, namely 0.05% CHX, 0.05% CPC, 0.2% CHX, water (W) and toothpaste slurry (TP). The combinations were; TP/CHX, CHX/TP, TP/CPC, CPC/TP, W/CHX, CHX/W, W/CPC, CPC/W, TP/W, W/TP, W/W. These treatments were followed by a 60 min soak in tea. Optical density readings were taken at baseline and after each of 8 cycles.

RESULTS

In the separate CHX and CPC studies by comparison with W/CHX, TP/0.05% CHX had little effect on staining, but TP/0.2% CHX showed a reduction in staining of 18%. 0.05% CHX/TP reduced staining by >40%, and 0.2% CHX by >78%. TP/CPC reduced staining by >26% and CPC/TP by 80%. Water after 0.2% CHX, 0.05% CHX and CPC reduced staining by 18%, 13% and 17% respectively. Little staining was seen with TP and W combinations. The data for CHX are in agreement with a study in vivo except TP followed by CHX reduced the activity of CHX.

CONCLUSION

Toothpaste appears to adversely affect the activity of CHX and CPC particularly if used immediately after the antiseptics. The data further supports the concept of separating the use of antiseptics until sometime after the use of toothpaste, and the idea of developing mouthwash friendly toothpastes.

Antibacterial agents in the control of supragingival plaque--a review

This review considers the main agents which have been used as antibacterial agents in mouthwashes and other vehicles to inhibit the growth of supragingival plaque. The agents discussed are bisguanide antiseptics, quaternary ammonium compounds, phenolic antiseptics, hexetidine, povidone iodine, triclosan, delmopinol, salifluor, metal ions, sanguinarine, propolis and oxygenating agents. The plaque inhibitory, anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis properties of these agents are considered along with their substantivity, safety and possible clinical usefulness. Clinical trials of these agents that have been published are also reported. The possible clinical uses of antiseptic mouthwashes are finally considered along with some advice about assessing manufacturers claims. Throughout this review the terms plaque inhibitory, anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis have been used according to the clarification of terminology suggested by the European Federation of Periodontology at its second workshop. This defines a plaque inhibitory effect as one reducing plaque to levels insufficient to prevent the development of gingivitis; an anti-plaque effect as one which produces a prolonged and profound reduction in plaque sufficient to prevent the development of gingivitis; and anti-gingivitis as an anti-inflammatory effect on the gingival health not necessarily mediated through an effect on plaque.

In vitro activities of antimicrobial agents against Candida species

OBJECTIVE

Antimicrobial mouthrinses may represent a valid alternative to topical antifungal agents. However, the action of antimicrobials could be affected by the different ingredients incorporated into mouthrinse products. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the in vitro antifungal and fungicidal activities of antimicrobials alone.

STUDY DESIGN

A broth macrodilution method was used to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration of 4 antimicrobial agents against Candida species. Minimum fungicidal concentration was also determined.

RESULTS

All antimicrobials showed antifungal activity against all tested organisms, but cetylpyridinium chloride received significantly lower minimum inhibitory concentrations (P < .005). Cetylpyridinium chloride also showed a greater fungicidal activity than chlorhexidine digluconate and hexetidine (P< .005), whereas sanguinarine chloride appeared to be less fungicidal against most of the isolates tested.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that cetylpyridinium chloride may be used as a topical antifungal agent. Clinical trials are now required to assess its value in the management of oral candidosis.

Gum health product formulations: what is in them and why?

Two dominant factors dictate which ingredients are used in formulating toothpaste and mouthwashes. The major one is the type of active ingredient chosen, especially cationic active ingredients such as chlorhexidine; the other factor is the needs of the consumer. Apart from gum health benefits, the consumer expects to obtain from gum health toothpaste and mouthwashes other benefits of clean teeth (abrasive and detergent), fresh breath (antimicrobial agents and flavor) and protection from caries and possibly tartar. Exhaustive testing involving experimental design and validated laboratory and clinical tests is essential to ensure that all these benefits are delivered. Unless products are developed systematically, then products with relatively poor activity can find their way on to the market.

Evaluation of oral hygiene products: science is true; don't be misled by the facts

Most people in industrialized countries use oral hygiene products. When an oral health benefit is expected, it is important that sufficient scientific evidence exist to support such claims. Ideally, data should be cumulative derived from studies in vitro and in vivo. The data should be available to the profession for evaluation by publication in refereed scientific journals. Terms and phrases require clarification, and claims made by implication or derived by inference must be avoided. Similarity in products is not necessarily proof per se of efficacy. Studies in vitro and in vivo should follow the basic principles of scientific research. Studies must be ethical, avoid bias and be suitably controlled. A choice of controls will vary depending on whether an agent or a whole product is evaluated and the development stage of a formulation. Where appropriate, new products should be compared with products already available and used by the general public. Conformity with the guidelines for good clinical practice appears to be a useful way of validating studies and a valuable guide to the profession. Studies should be designed with sufficient power to detect statistically significant differences if these exist. However, consideration must be given to the clinical significance of statistically significant differences between formulations since these are not necessarily the same. Studies in vitro provide supportive data but extrapolation to clinical effect is difficult and even misleading, and such data should not stand alone as proof of efficacy of a product. Short-term studies in vivo provide useful information, particularly at the development stage. Ideally, however, products should be proved effective when used in the circumstances for which they are developed. Nevertheless, a variety of variable influence the outcome of home-use studies, and the influence of the variable cannot usually be calculated. Although rarely considered, the cost-benefit ratio of some oral hygiene products needs to be considered.

The comparative effect of acidified sodium chlorite and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on plaque regrowth and salivary bacterial counts

Acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) is recognised as a highly potent, broad spectrum antimicrobial system that has been successfully developed for uses in veterinary, food processing and medical device fields. The current studies aimed to investigate the persistence of antimicrobial action and plaque inhibitory properties of 3 ASC mouthrinses by comparison with positive control, chlorhexidine 0.12%, and placebo control, water, rinses. Both studies were randomised, double-blind, cross-over 5-cell designs balanced for carryover. The 1st study involved 15 healthy subjects who immediately before and at 30, 60, 180, 300 and 420 min after rinsing provided 2 ml saliva samples. The samples were immediately processed for total anaerobic bacterial counts recorded after 96 h incubation. Washout periods were a minimum of 3 days. The second study involved 20 healthy subjects who on day 1 of each study were rendered plaque free, suspended normal oral hygiene methods and commenced rinsing twice daily with the allocated rinse. On day 5, plaque was scored by index and area after disclosing with erythrosin. Washout periods were 2 1/2 days. The 3 ASC and chlorhexidine rinses produced similar reductions in salivary bacterial counts which remained significantly below the placebo control to 7 h. There were no significant differences between ASC and chlorhexidine rinses except at 30 and 60 min when significantly greater reductions were produced by 2 ASC rinses compared to the chlorhexidine rinse. Plaque indices and areas were considerably and significantly lower with the ASC and chlorhexidine rinses compared to the placebo rinse. There were no significant differences between plaque scores for the 3 ASC rinses and the chlorhexidine rinse, although for 2 ASC rinses plaque scores were lower than for the chlorhexidine rinse. The results indicate that the 3 ASC rinses have equivalent plaque inhibitory action to chlorhexidine as a rinse. Similar to chlorhexidine, the plaque inhibitory action of the rinses appears to be derived from a persistence of antimicrobial action in the mouth.