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

Early human dental plaque formation in individuals with a history of longstanding or recently achieved gingival health.

link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Treatment of intrabony defects with an enamel matrix protein derivative or bioabsorbable membrane: an 8-year follow-up split-mouth study.

Contains fulltext : 51094.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Treatments with either an enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) or guided tissue regeneration (GTR) have been shown to promote periodontal regeneration. However, until recently, only limited data have been available on the long-term clinical results following these regenerative techniques. Therefore, the aim of this study was to present the 8-year results of a prospective, controlled, split-mouth clinical study evaluating the treatment of intrabony defects with EMD or GTR. METHODS: Ten patients, each of whom displayed one pair of intrabony defects located contralaterally in the same jaw, were randomly treated with EMD or with GTR by means of bioabsorbable membranes. The following clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 1 and 8 years after treatment: plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), and clinical attachment level (CAL). The primary outcome variable was CAL. No statistically significant differences between the groups were found at baseline. RESULTS: The sites treated with EMD demonstrated a mean CAL change from 9.5 +/- 1.2 mm to 6.3 +/- 1.3 mm (P <0.001) and 6.7 +/- 1.6 mm (P <0.001) at 1 and 8 years, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the 1- and 8-year results. Sites treated with GTR showed a mean CAL change from 9.7 +/- 1.3 mm to 6.7 +/- 0.9 mm (P <0.001) at 1 year and 6.8 +/- 1.2 mm (P <0.001) at 8 years. The CAL change between 1 and 8 years did not present statistically significant differences. Between the treatment groups, no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters were observed at 1 and at 8 years. However, the study does not have the statistical power to rule out the possibility of a difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within their limits, the present results indicate the following: 1) the clinical improvements obtained following treatment with EMD or GTR can be maintained over a period of 8 years; and 2) further studies of much higher power need to be performed to support equivalence