Antiplaque Effect of Essential Oils and 0.2% Chlorhexidine on an In Situ Model of Oral Biofilm Growth: A Randomised Clinical Trial

This work was supported by project PI11/ 01383 from Carlos III Institute of Health (General Division of Evaluation and Research Promotion, Madrid, Spain), which is integrated in National Plan of Research, Development and Innovation (PN I+D+I 2008-2011). This project was cofinanced by European Regional Development Fund (ERDF 2007- 2013

Efficacy of essential oil mouthwash with and without alcohol: a 3-Day plaque accumulation model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiplaque effect of a new alcohol free essential oil mouthwash with respect to a control of an essential oil with alcohol mouthwash, using an <it>in vivo </it>plaque regrowth model of 3-days.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 30 volunteers to compare two different essential oil containing mouthwashes, during a 3-day plaque accumulation model. After receiving a thorough professional prophylaxis at the baseline, over the next 3-days each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and had two daily rinses with 20 ml of the test mouthwash (alcohol free essential oil) or the control mouthwash (essential oil with alcohol). At the end of the each experimental period, plaque was assessed and the panelists filled out a questionnaire. Each subject underwent a 14 days washout period and there was a second allocation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The essential oil mouthwash with ethanol shows a better inhibitory effect of plaque regrowth in 3-days than the mouthwash test with only essential oil in the whole mouth (plaque index = 2.18 against 2.46, respectively, p < 0.05); for the lower jaw (plaque index = 2.28 against 2.57, respectively, p < 0.05); for the upper jaw (plaque index = 2.08 against 2.35, respectively, p < 0.05); for the incisors (plaque index = 1.93 against 2.27, respectively, p < 0.05); and the canines (plaque index = 1.99 against 2.47, respectively, p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The essential oil containing mouthwash without alcohol seems to have a less inhibiting effect on the plaque regrowth than the traditional alcoholic solution.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01411618">NCT01411618</a></p

Biofilm formation on stainless steel and gold wires for bonded retainers in vitro and in vivo and their susceptibility to oral antimicrobials

<p>Bonded retainers are used in orthodontics to maintain treatment result. Retention wires are prone to biofilm formation and cause gingival recession, bleeding on probing and increased pocket depths near bonded retainers. In this study, we compare in vitro and in vivo biofilm formation on different wires used for bonded retainers and the susceptibility of in vitro biofilms to oral antimicrobials.</p><p>Orthodontic wires were exposed to saliva, and in vitro biofilm formation was evaluated using plate counting and live/dead staining, together with effects of exposure to toothpaste slurry alone or followed by antimicrobial mouthrinse application. Wires were also placed intra-orally for 72 h in human volunteers and undisturbed biofilm formation was compared by plate counting and live/dead staining, as well as by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis for compositional differences in biofilms.</p><p>Single-strand wires attracted only slightly less biofilm in vitro than multi-strand wires. Biofilms on stainless steel single-strand wires however, were much more susceptible to antimicrobials from toothpaste slurries and mouthrinses than on single-strand gold wires and biofilms on multi-strand wires. Also, in vivo significantly less biofilm was found on single-strand than on multi-strand wires. Microbial composition of biofilms was more dependent on the volunteer involved than on wire type.</p><p>Biofilms on single-strand stainless steel wires attract less biofilm in vitro and are more susceptible to antimicrobials than on multi-strand wires. Also in vivo, single-strand wires attract less biofilm than multi-strand ones.</p><p>Use of single-strand wires is preferred over multi-strand wires, not because they attract less biofilm, but because biofilms on single-strand wires are not protected against antimicrobials as in crevices and niches as on multi-strand wires.</p>