title: Plaque inhibition of two commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.2% solution is still "the leading oral antiseptic" for controlling gingivitis. Side effects, however, limit the acceptability to users and the long-term employment of a 0.2% CHX antiseptic in preventive dentistry. This stimulated the development of new formulations. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect on plaque inhibition and taste perception of two commercially available mouthrinses (0.12% CHX non-alcohol base with 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride (Cpc) versus 0.2% CHX alcohol base).
  
  
  METHODS
  The study was designed as a single-blind, randomized two group parallel experiment, to compare two different commercially available mouthrinses, during a 3-day plaque accumulation model. Forty healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study and received a thorough dental prophylaxis at the beginning of the test period. Over a 72-h experimental non-brushing period, during which subjects abstained from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene, one group (test) used a 15 ml alcohol free 0.12% CHX (=18 mg) mouthrinse on a Cpc base (Perioaid), CHX plus sign in circleCpc), twice daily for 30 s. The other group (control) used a 10 ml 0.2% CHX (=20 mg) mouthrinse on an 11.8% ethanol alcohol base (Corsodyl), CHX plus sign in circleAlc), twice daily for 60 s. After 72 h of plaque formation, the amount of plaque was evaluated. By the use of visual analogue scale, the subjects were asked for their appreciation of the taste of the mouthrinse they had used.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean plaque index for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group was 0.97 and for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group 0.78. After 72 h of non-brushing, there was no significant difference in plaque accumulation between the two groups. The answers to the questions (taste perception and after-taste) showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups. The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for taste appreciation on a scale from very bad to very good taste (0-10) were 5.92 for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group and 4.10 for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group (p=0.02). The mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for the after-taste on a scale from very short to very long (0-10) were 7.24 for the CHX plus sign in circleCpc group and 5.38 for the CHX plus sign in circleAlc group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Within the limitations of the present study design, it can be concluded that rinsing with a 0.12% CHX mouthrinse on a non-alcohol base with 0.05% Cpc (Perio-Aid) is not significantly different from rinsing with a 0.2% CHX mouthrinse on an alcohol base (Corsodyl). It appears that the subjects appreciated the taste of the non-alcohol CHX solution better but the after-taste of the rinse remained longer in the mouth.
authors.affiliation: Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. D.v.Strydonck@acta.nl
authors.forename: D A C
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Van Strydonck
authors.forename: M F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Timmerman
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: van der Velden
authors.forename: G A
authors.initials: GA
authors.lastname: van der Weijden
mesh_terms: D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002594:Cetylpyridinium / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002710:Chlorhexidine / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003773:Dental Plaque / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003774:Dental Plaque Index; D000431:Ethanol / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009067:Mouthwashes / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013649:Taste / Q000187:drug effects
chemical_list: D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local; D009067:Mouthwashes; D000431:Ethanol; D002594:Cetylpyridinium; C010882:chlorhexidine gluconate; D002710:Chlorhexidine