Objectives: 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.

Material and Methods: One hundred and eight qualifying subjects, aged 20–57 years, were randomized into three groups: essential oil mouthrinse (Listerine® Antiseptic); 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.

Results: 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 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an essential oil mouthrinse: 6-month clinical trial.

Clinical efficacy of antimicrobial mouthrinses

Background Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other. Search methods Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks). Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). Main results We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Loe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5). Primary objective comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone. Secondary objective comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation. Authors' conclusions Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

/pdf/home-use-of-interdental-cleaning-devices-in-addition-to-2bqv0vns0u.pdf

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries

Background
Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults.

Objectives
To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

Search methods
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials.

Selection criteria
We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias.

Main results
Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.

Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.

Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.

None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects.

Authors' conclusions
There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

/pdf/flossing-for-the-management-of-periodontal-diseases-and-3kzy791s0a.pdf

Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

Periodontics: Medicine, Surgery and Implants

PURPOSE To compare the effectiveness of rinsing with an essential oil-containing antimicrobial mouthrinse with that of dental floss in reducing interproximal gingivitis and plaque in an unsupervised 6-month clinical trial designed in accordance with ADA Acceptance Program Guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS 319 qualifying subjects, aged 18-63, were randomized into one of three groups: essential oil mouthrinse (Listerine Antiseptic); dental floss (Reach Dental Floss); or a negative control rinse. At baseline, subjects received a complete oral soft tissue examination and scoring of the Modified Gingival Index (MGI), modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI), and bleeding index (BI). Following a complete dental prophylaxis and receiving flossing or rinsing instructions, subjects started on their respective regimen. They continued on their assigned regimen unsupervised at home, in addition to toothbrushing, and 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 mean interproximal MGI and PI at 6 months. Intergroup differences at 3 and 6 months were tested using a one-way analysis of covariance model with treatment as a factor and the respective baseline value as the covariate. In addition, the essential oil mouthrinse was compared to floss for interproximal gingivitis reduction using "at least as good as" statistical criteria. RESULTS 301 subjects were considered evaluable. There were no statistically significant differences among the 3 groups at baseline, with the exception of the essential oil mouthrinse group having significantly fewer AfroAmerican subjects than the other two groups. For the interproximal MGI, the essential oil mouthrinse and flossing were both significantly more effective than the negative control (P < 0.001) at 3 and 6 months. The essential oil mouthrinse was shown to be "at least as good as" dental floss for the control of interproximal gingivitis. For the interproximal PI, the essential oil mouthrinse was significantly more effective than the negative control at 3 and 6 months (P < 0.001) while flossing was significantly more effective than the negative control at 3 months (P < 0.05) but not at 6 months. The essential oil mouthrinse was significantly more effective than floss (P < 0.001) at both these time periods.

Comparative effectiveness of an essential oil mouthrinse and dental floss in controlling interproximal gingivitis and plaque.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Kumar Ld

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Comparative effectiveness of an essential oil mouthrinse and dental floss in controlling interproximal gingivitis and plaque.