In vitro effects of alcohol-containing mouthwashes on human enamel and restorative materials.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects, including surface morphological characteristics and chemical elemental properties, of different mouthwash formulations on enamel and dental restorative materials, simulating up to 6 months of daily use. Human enamel samples, hydroxyapatite, composite resin, and ceramic surfaces were exposed to 3 different mouthwashes according to label directions - Listerine® Cool Mint®, Listerine® Total Care, and Listerine® Whitening - versus control (hydroalcohol solution) to simulate daily use for up to 6 months. The samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), infrared spectrophotometry (µ-Fourier transform infrared microscopy), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, and color analysis before and after exposure. No relevant changes were observed in the morphological characteristics of the surfaces using SEM techniques. The physical and chemical aspects of the enamel surfaces were evaluated using mid-infrared spectroscopy, and EDX fluorescence was used to evaluate the elemental aspects of each surface. There was no variation in the relative concentrations of calcium and phosphorus in enamel, silicon and barium in composite resin, and silicon and aluminum in the ceramic material before and after treatment. No relevant changes were detected in the biochemical and color properties of any specimen, except with Listerine® Whitening mouthwash, which demonstrated a whitening effect on enamel surfaces. Long-term exposure to low pH, alcohol-containing, and peroxide-containing mouthwash formulations caused no ultra-structural or chemical elemental changes in human enamel or dental restorative materials in vitro.

In vitro effects of alcohol-containing mouthwashes on human enamel and restorative materials

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects, including surface morphological characteristics and chemical elemental properties, of different mouthwash formulations on enamel and dental restorative materials, simulating up to 6 months of daily use. Human enamel samples, hydroxyapatite, composite resin, and ceramic surfaces were exposed to 3 different mouthwashes according to label directions — Listerine® Cool Mint®, Listerine® Total Care, and Listerine® Whitening — versus control (hydroalcohol solution) to simulate daily use for up to 6 months. The samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), infrared spectrophotometry (µ-Fourier transform infrared microscopy), energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, and color analysis before and after exposure. No relevant changes were observed in the morphological characteristics of the surfaces using SEM techniques. The physical and chemical aspects of the enamel surfaces were evaluated using mid-infrared spectroscopy, and EDX fluorescence was used to evaluate the elemental aspects of each surface. There was no variation in the relative concentrations of calcium and phosphorus in enamel, silicon and barium in composite resin, and silicon and aluminum in the ceramic material before and after treatment. No relevant changes were detected in the biochemical and color properties of any specimen, except with Listerine® Whitening mouthwash, which demonstrated a whitening effect on enamel surfaces. Long-term exposure to low pH, alcohol-containing, and peroxide-containing mouthwash formulations caused no ultra-structural or chemical elemental changes in human enamel or dental restorative materials in vitro.

Gingival health benefits of essential oil, 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride and control mouthrinses: A 4-week randomized clinical study.

PURPOSE: This randomized, single center, examiner-blind, controlled, parallel-group, 4-week clinical study compared the antiplaque/anti-gingivitis efficacy of an essential oil (EO) containing mouthrinse versus a 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) containing mouthrinse. A 5% hydroalcohol solution was included as a control group. METHODS: 165 systemically healthy volunteers (18-72 years of age), with mild to moderate plaque-related gingivitis were enrolled in this clinical trial; 162 subjects completed the study. At baseline and 4-week visits, subjects received an oral examination, gingivitis (MGI), gingival bleeding (BI) and plaque (PI) assessments. Following randomization, subjects began rinsing with 20 mL of the assigned mouthrinse for 30 seconds, in conjunction with their usual oral hygiene, twice daily for the duration of the study. RESULTS: All rinses were well tolerated by the subjects. EO was statistically significantly superior to CPC with a reduction in mean MGI of 5.9%, and in mean PI of 6.4%. Statistically significant reductions in gingivitis, bleeding and plaque were observed for both EO and CPC when compared to the negative control; mean MGI and mean PI were reduced by 13.0% and 18.9% for EO and by 7.6% and 13.3% for CPC. EO also statistically significantly reduced the proportion of gingival bleeding sites compared to CPC by 7.6% (P = 0.012) and compared to control by 10.6% (P < 0.001). For the post hoc sitewise analyses, at 4 weeks, the mean percentage of healthy sites for EO, CPC and Control were 7.4%, 1.1% and 0.8%, respectively and the mean percentage of virtually plaque free sites for EO, CPC and control were 5.4%, 3.8% and 0.4% respectively. The mean percentages of more inflamed gingival sites for EO, CPC and control were 20.4%, 26.2% and 45.7%, respectively. The mean percentage of tooth surfaces with heavier accumulations of plaque (PI scores ≥ 3) was 50.9% for EO, 56.1% for CPC and 81.1% for control. Reduction of gingival inflammation and dental plaque was statistically significantly superior for EO compared to both 0.075% CPC and negative control. Both marketed antimicrobial mouthrinses showed a beneficial result in gingival health and in reducing plaque accumulation as early as 4 weeks.

Gingival health benefits of essential-oil and cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinses: a 6-month randomized clinical study.

PURPOSE: This randomized, single center, examiner-blind, controlled, parallel-group, 6-month clinical study compared the antiplaque/antigingivitis potential of an essential oil (EO) versus a 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)-containing mouthrinse. A 5% hydroalcohol solution was included as a control group. METHODS: 354 healthy volunteers (18-71 years of age) were enrolled in this clinical trial; 338 subjects completed the study. At baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-month visits, subjects received an oral examination, gingivitis (MGI), gingival bleeding (BI) and plaque assessments (PI). Following randomization, subjects received a prophylaxis and began brushing twice daily with the provided fluoride toothpaste and rinsing twice daily with 20 mL of the assigned mouthrinse for 30 seconds. RESULTS: All rinses were well tolerated by the subjects, with the exception of extrinsic tooth stain complaints in 13 subjects in the CPC group between the 3- and 6-month exams. Statistically significant reductions in gingivitis, bleeding and plaque were observed for both EO and CPC at all post-baseline time-points when compared to the negative control. At 6 months MGI and PI were reduced by 42.6% and 42.0% for EO and by 17.1% and 13.9% respectively, for CPC vs. control. When compared to CPC, EO was statistically significantly superior at all post-baseline time-points. EO showed increasing reductions in MGI of 10.5%, 20.3% and 30.7% as well as reductions in PI of 12.7%, 23.7% and 32.6% at 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively. When analyzing the number of healthy sites (MGI scores of 0 or 1), the beneficial effect of the EO-containing mouthrinse is 45.8% greater than using a CPC-containing mouthrinse and 59.8% greater than placebo.

Superiority of essential oils versus 0.075% CPC-containing mouthrinse: a two-week randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized, examiner-blind, parallel, controlled clinical study was to compare the antiplaque/antigingivitis efficacy of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (EO) to a new 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinse (CPC) using a two-week experimental gingivitis model with a 5% hydroalcohol rinse serving as the negative control. METHODS: After signing informed consents and completing baseline examinations, 185 subjects were randomized into three groups. Subjects began supervised/recorded rinsing with 20 ml of their assigned rinse for 30 seconds twice daily for two weeks, with no mechanical oral hygiene permitted. Baseline and two-week assessments were conducted as follows: Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI), Modified Gingival Index (MGI), and the Gingival Bleeding Index (BI). Analysis of efficacy variables (i.e., mean PI, mean MGI, mean BI, and proportion of bleeding sites derived from the BI) was performed using a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Among the 182 subjects who completed the study, the EO rinse showed statistically significant reductions compared to the negative control within the range previously reported in this model; PI = 36.5% (p < 0.001) and MGI = 17.5% (p < 0.001). A 43.2% reduction in proportion of bleeding sites (p < 0.001) was demonstrated. Mean PI, MGI, and proportion of bleeding sites at two weeks were statistically significantly lower for the EO rinse compared to the CPC rinse (p < 0.001), showing 27.7%, 11.9%, and 30.0% reductions, respectively. CONCLUSION: An EO rinse provided superior antigingivitis/antiplaque efficacy compared to a 0.075% CPC rinse in this short-term clinical trial, and demonstrated efficacy within the range shown in previous studies using this model.

Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of a multipurpose essential oil-containing mouthrinse and a cetylpyridinium chloride-containing mouthrinse: A 6-month randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: This 6-month, examiner-blind, single-center, randomized, parallel group clinical trial compared the antiplaque and antigingivitis effects of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse with zinc chloride and sodium fluoride (EO) to a 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride-containing mouthrinse (CPC) also with fluoride. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Four hundred and eight gingivitis subjects were monitored for the primary outcomes of modified Gingival Index (MGI) and Plaque Index (PI) at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Subjects were randomly assigned to 6-month twice a day unsupervised use of EO, CPC, or negative control rinse in conjunction with normal brushing and flossing. RESULTS: EO was always better than CPC at 3 and 6 months considering all parameters. All benefits allowed by EO increased from 3 to 6 months. CPC was better than the negative control at 3 and 6 months with respect to whole mouth plaque, and the proportion of more severe sites (baseline scores ≥ 3) in PI and MGI. At 6 months, CPC did not differ from negative control in relation to whole mouth MGI reduction, proximal MGI reduction, and percentages of sites improved over baseline in PI and MGI. CONCLUSION: This new EO mouthrinse provided superior clinical benefits to CPC and demonstrated increasing plaque and gingivitis reductions over 6 months. Our findings support the regular long-term use of the EO mouthrinse and selection over a 0.05% CPC rinse for better efficacy.

Comparative efficacy of two daily use mouthrinses: randomized clinical trial using an experimental gingivitis model.

Two antimicrobial agents, a fixed combination of essential oils (EOs) and 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are found in commercially available mouthrinses, Listerine® Antiseptic and Crest® Pro HealthTM, respectively. Both mouthrinses have been shown to control dental plaque and gingivitis in short and longer term studies. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two mouthrinses using a 2-week experimental gingivitis model. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthrinse groups: a fixed combination of EOs, 0.07% CPC, or negative control (C) rinse. Following baseline clinical assessments and a dental prophylaxis, subjects began a two-week period in which they rinsed twice daily with their assigned rinse and abstained from any mechanical oral hygiene procedures or other oral care products. Subjects were reassessed at the end of the two-week period. One hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized and 142 completed this study. After two weeks use, the EOs rinse was superior (p < 0.011) to the CPC rinse in inhibiting the development of gingivitis, plaque, and bleeding, with 9.4% and 6.6% reductions compared to CPC for gingivitis and plaque, respectively. Both rinses were superior to the negative control rinse (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the essential oil-containing mouthrinse has superior antiplaque/antigingivitis effectiveness compared to the 0.07% CPC-containing mouthrinse without mechanical oral hygiene influence.

Comparative efficacy of two daily use mouthrinses: randomized clinical trial using an experimental gingivitis model

Two antimicrobial agents, a fixed combination of essential oils (EOs) and 0.07 percent cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are found in commercially available mouthrinses, Listerine® Antiseptic and Crest® Pro HealthTM, respectively. Both mouthrinses have been shown to control dental plaque and gingivitis in short and longer term studies. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two mouthrinses using a 2-week experimental gingivitis model. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthrinse groups: a fixed combination of EOs, 0.07 percent CPC, or negative control (C) rinse. Following baseline clinical assessments and a dental prophylaxis, subjects began a two-week period in which they rinsed twice daily with their assigned rinse and abstained from any mechanical oral hygiene procedures or other oral care products. Subjects were reassessed at the end of the two-week period. One hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized and 142 completed this study. After two weeks use, the EOs rinse was superior (p < 0.011) to the CPC rinse in inhibiting the development of gingivitis, plaque, and bleeding, with 9.4 percent and 6.6 percent reductions compared to CPC for gingivitis and plaque, respectively. Both rinses were superior to the negative control rinse (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the essential oil-containing mouthrinse has superior antiplaque/antigingivitis effectiveness compared to the 0.07 percent CPC-containing mouthrinse without mechanical oral hygiene influence.

Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of three antiseptic mouthrinses: a two week randomized clinical trial.

The objective of this randomized, examiner blind, parallel group, controlled clinical trial was to compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (EO) to two mouthrinses containing 0.05% Cetylpyridinium Chloride (CPC), one with alcohol and one alcohol-free, using a two-week experimental gingivitis validated-model with a 5% hydroalcohol rinse serving as the negative control. One hundred and fifty-nine subjects, 56 males and 103 females; ranging in age from 18 to 58 years in good general health were assigned to one of the four treatment groups: EO (n = 40), 0.05% CPC with alcohol (CPCa, n = 39), 0.05% CPC alcohol-free (CPCna, n = 40), and 5% hydroalcohol negative control (n = 40). The Mean Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI) and the Mean Modified Gingival Index (MGI) were the primary efficacy endpoints and were evaluated at baseline and at two weeks. Following baseline examinations, subjects received a complete dental prophylaxis and began supervised rinsing with their assigned mouthrinse twice daily for two weeks, as their sole oral hygiene measure; 151 subjects completed the trial. Two weeks after baseline the EO adjusted mean PI and MGI scores were significantly lower than those of both CPC rinses and negative control (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the EO mouthrinse demonstrated significantly greater antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy than both CPC-containing mouthrinses and the negative control.

Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of three antiseptic mouthrinses: a two week randomized clinical trial

The objective of this randomized, examiner blind, parallel group, controlled clinical trial was to compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (EO) to two mouthrinses containing 0.05 percent Cetylpyridinium Chloride (CPC), one with alcohol and one alcohol-free, using a two-week experimental gingivitis validated-model with a 5 percent hydroalcohol rinse serving as the negative control. One hundred and fifty-nine subjects, 56 males and 103 females; ranging in age from 18 to 58 years in good general health were assigned to one of the four treatment groups: EO (n = 40), 0.05 percent CPC with alcohol (CPCa, n = 39), 0.05 percent CPC alcohol-free (CPCna, n = 40), and 5 percent hydroalcohol negative control (n = 40). The Mean Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI) and the Mean Modified Gingival Index (MGI) were the primary efficacy endpoints and were evaluated at baseline and at two weeks. Following baseline examinations, subjects received a complete dental prophylaxis and began supervised rinsing with their assigned mouthrinse twice daily for two weeks, as their sole oral hygiene measure; 151 subjects completed the trial. Two weeks after baseline the EO adjusted mean PI and MGI scores were significantly lower than those of both CPC rinses and negative control (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the EO mouthrinse demonstrated significantly greater antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy than both CPC-containing mouthrinses and the negative control.