Charles C H, Mostler K M, Bartels L L, Mankodi S M
Dental Products Testing, West Palm Beach, FL, USA.
J Clin Periodontol. 2004 Oct;31(10):878-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00578.x.
The objective of this study was to compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness and the side-effect profiles of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse and a chlorhexidine-containing mouthrinse.
One hundred and eight qualifying subjects, aged 20-57 years, were randomized into three groups: essential oil mouthrinse (ListerineAntiseptic); 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Peridex); or 5% hydroalcohol negative control. At baseline, subjects received a complete oral soft tissue examination and scoring of the Loe-Silness gingival index (GI), Quigley-Hein plaque index (PI), Volpe-Manhold calculus index (CI), and Lobene extrinsic tooth stain index (SI). Following a complete dental prophylaxis, subjects started rinsing twice daily with their respective mouthrinse as an adjunct to their usual mechanical oral hygiene procedures. One of the rinses on each weekday was supervised. Subjects were reexamined at 3 and 6 months. The treatment groups were compared with respect to baseline demographic and clinical variables. The primary efficacy variables were GI and PI. Intergroup differences for all clinical variables were tested at 3 and 6 months using appropriate statistical procedures.
All of the 108 randomized subjects were evaluable at 3 months, and 107 subjects were evaluable at 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups at baseline, with the exception that the control group PI was significantly lower than that of the essential oil group (p<0.05) and the chlorhexidine group (p<0.001), and the essential oil mouthrinse group had a significantly greater number of subjects than the control group with body region SI scores > or =1.0 (p=0.021). At 6 months, the essential oil and chlorhexidine mouthrinses produced statistically significant (p<0.001) GI reductions of 14.0% and 18.2%, respectively, and statistically significant (p<0.001) PI reductions of 18.8% and 21.6%, respectively, compared with the control and were not statistically significantly different from each other with respect to plaque and gingivitis reduction. The chlorhexidine mouthrinse group had significantly more calculus and extrinsic tooth stain than either the essential oil mouthrinse group or the control group.
This 6-month controlled clinical study demonstrated that the essential oil mouthrinse and the chlorhexidine mouthrinse had comparable antiplaque and antigingivitis activity. Insofar as side effects associated with the chlorhexidine mouthrinse may limit patient compliance, it is suggested that each product can have a distinct role in the management of patients with periodontal diseases.
本研究的目的是比较含精油漱口水和含氯己定漱口水的抗牙菌斑和抗牙龈炎效果以及副作用情况。
108名年龄在20 - 57岁的合格受试者被随机分为三组:精油漱口水(李施德林抗菌漱口水);0.12%氯己定漱口水(派丽奥);或5%含酒精阴性对照。在基线时,对受试者进行全面的口腔软组织检查,并对洛 - 西姆斯牙龈指数(GI)、奎格利 - 海因菌斑指数(PI)、沃尔普 - 曼霍尔德牙石指数(CI)和洛贝内牙齿外源性染色指数(SI)进行评分。在进行全面的牙齿洁治后,受试者开始每天使用各自的漱口水漱口两次,作为其日常机械口腔卫生程序的辅助措施。每个工作日的一次漱口是在监督下进行的。在3个月和6个月时对受试者进行复查。比较治疗组在基线人口统计学和临床变量方面的情况。主要疗效变量为GI和PI。使用适当的统计程序在3个月和6个月时测试所有临床变量的组间差异。
108名随机分组的受试者在3个月时均可评估,107名受试者在6个月时可评估。三组在基线时无统计学显著差异,但对照组的PI显著低于精油组(p<0.05)和氯己定组(p<0.001),且精油漱口水组身体部位SI评分≥1.0的受试者数量显著多于对照组(p = 0.021)。在6个月时,与对照组相比,精油漱口水和氯己定漱口水使GI分别显著降低了14.0%和18.2%(p<0.001),使PI分别显著降低了18.8%和21.6%(p<0.001),在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎方面彼此无统计学显著差异。氯己定漱口水组的牙石和牙齿外源性染色显著多于精油漱口水组或对照组。
这项为期6个月的对照临床研究表明,精油漱口水和氯己定漱口水具有相当的抗牙菌斑和抗牙龈炎活性。鉴于与氯己定漱口水相关的副作用可能会限制患者的依从性,建议每种产品在牙周疾病患者的管理中都可发挥独特作用。