These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An approach to efficacy screening of mouthrinses: studies on a group of French products (II). Inhibition of salivary bacteria and plaque in vivo.
    Author: Harper PR, Milsom S, Wade W, Addy M, Moran J, Newcombe RG.
    Journal: J Clin Periodontol; 1995 Sep; 22(9):723-7. PubMed ID: 7593704.
    Abstract:
    The aim of this study was to determine the value of screening studies to assess the efficacy of antiseptic mouthrinse products relative to proven products. The products tested were 6 antiseptic mouthrinses available in France. 4 contained chlorhexidine (Eludril, Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine) with Hibident considered the positive control. 1 product contained cetylpyridinium chloride (Alodont) and 1 hexetidine (Hextril). Saline was used as the negative control. The 1st study assessed the persistence of action of the products by recording salivary bacterial counts before and up to 7 h after single rinses. The 2nd study measured the inhibition of plaque regrowth, from a zero baseline, in the absence of tooth-brushing over a 4-day period. Both studies used blind randomised crossover designs balanced for residual effects. Salivary bacterial count reductions with time were highly significantly greater for Parodex to 5 h and Hibident and Prexidine to 7 h; There were no significant differences between the latter three chlorhexidine rinses except at 3 h, when decrements were significantly less with Parodex. Despite a mean trend in favour, Alodont, Eludril and Hextril were not significantly different from saline. Plaque inhibition by area and index was highly significantly different between products. Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine showed similar plaque inhibition and were significantly more effective than all other rinses. Eludril and Hextril were significantly more effective than saline but Alodont was not. Taken with the associated study in vitro and published reports on the same or similar products, it is apparent that efficacy of a product cannot be assumed merely because it contains a known active plaque inhibitor.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]