Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an essential oil mouthrinse: 6-month clinical trial
Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an essential oil mouthrinse: 6-month clinical trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00578.x
复制
发表时间：
2004-10-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Mankodi, SM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Charles, CH;Mostler, KM;Mankodi, SM
目的：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、抗牙龈炎效果以及副作用情况。
材料与方法：108名符合条件的受试者，年龄在20 - 57岁之间，被随机分为三组：精油漱口水（李施德林抗菌剂）；0.12%氯己定漱口水（派丽奥）；或5%水醇阴性对照。在基线时，受试者接受全面的口腔软组织检查，并对 Löe - Silness牙龈指数（GI）、Quigley - Hein菌斑指数（PI）、Volpe - Manhold牙石指数（CI）和Lobene外源性牙齿染色指数（SI）进行评分。在完成全面的牙齿预防措施后，受试者开始每天用各自的漱口水漱口两次，作为其常规机械口腔卫生程序的辅助手段。每个工作日的其中一次漱口受到监督。受试者在3个月和6个月时接受重新检查。对治疗组在基线人口统计学和临床变量方面进行比较。主要疗效变量是GI和PI。在3个月和6个月时，使用适当的统计方法对所有临床变量的组间差异进行检验。
结果：108名随机受试者在3个月时均可评估，107名受试者在6个月时可评估。基线时三组之间除对照组的PI显著低于精油组（p
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(R) Antiseptic); 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Peridex(R)); 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