Search

Aim To report the evidence on the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and caries. Material and Methods A protocol was designed to identify randomized ( RCTs) and controlled ( CCTs) clinical trials, cohort studies and prospective case series ( PCS), with at least 6 months of follow-up, reporting on plaque, gingivitis and caries. Relevant information was extracted from full papers, including quality and risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. Results After the screening of 1,373 titles, 15 RCTs, 10 CCTs and 2 PCS were included. Low to moderate evidence support that combined professional and self-performed mechanical plaque control significantly reduces standardized plaque index [ n = 4; weighted mean difference ( WMD) = 1.294; 95% CI (0.445; 2.144); p = 0.003] and gingivitis scores [ n = 4; WMD = 1.728; 95% CI (0.631; 2.825); p = 0.002]. The addition of fluoride to mechanical plaque control is relevant for caries management [ n = 5; WMD = 1.159; 95% CI (0.145; 2.172); p = 0.025] while chlorhexidine rinses are relevant for gingivitis. Conclusion Mechanical plaque control procedures are effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis. The addition of fluoride to mechanical plaque control is significant for caries management. Chlorhexidine rinse has a positive effect on gingivitis and inconclusive role in caries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare 3 mouthwashes: 0.20% chlorhexidine (CHX) with Anti‐Discoloration System (ADS), 0.20% CHX and 0.12% CHX with 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), in terms of reduction of plaque and gingival bleeding and side effects. Methods: Mild gingivitis patients were randomly divided into three Groups: they underwent professional oral hygiene and received instructions: oral rinse with 10 mL for 1', twice a day, 30' after tooth brushing, for 14 days. Primary outcomes were plaque and gingival bleeding, assessed with Plaque Control Record and Gingival Bleeding Index. Feedback questionnaire and spectrophotometer evaluated secondary outcomes: adverse events. Timing of the study was T0 (baseline), T1 (professional oral hygiene) and T2 (14th day after mouthwash use). Results: Sixty‐six patients were recruited, two patients dropped out, and 64 patients completed the study. PCR T1‐T2 mean variation was 30.67 (SD = 15.22; 95% CI 23.55 to 37.80; P = 0.000), 19.93 (SD = 11.03; 95% CI 14.90 to 24.95; P = 0.000) and 16.24 (SD = 15.35; 95% CI 9.60 to 22.88; P = 0.000) respectively in Groups 0.2% CHX + ADS, 0.2% CHX and 0.12% CHX + CPC. GBI mean variation (T0‐T2) was −9.82 (SD = 9.27; 95% CI −5.48 to 14.16; P = 0.000), −19.31 (SD = 11.33; 95% CI −14.15 to −24.47; P = 0.000) and −21.13 (SD = 12.56; 95% CI −15.70 to −26.56; P = 0.000) respectively in Groups 0.2% CHX + ADS, 0.2% CHX and 0.12% CHX + CPC. Statistical significance was found in lower efficacy of 0.2% CHX + ADS Group. Patients tolerated 0.12% CHX + CPC mouthwash better in bleeding perception (95.5%; P = 0.046), burning sensation (13.6%; P = 0.006), and mouthwash taste (100%; P = 0.000). Results on staining were no statistically significant (P = 0.106). Conclusions: Addition of CPC allows reduction of CHX percentage in mouthwash formulation while keeping equal efficacy and less side effects. ADS addition decreases CHX efficacy in reducing plaque and bleeding, while resulting more tolerated than CHX. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]