Search

Aim The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of anti-plaque chemical formulations for managing gingivitis, in 6-month, home-use, randomised clinical trials ( RCTs). Material and Methods A protocol was designed, including inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify RCTs assessing gingival and/or bleeding indices. Electronic and hand-searches identified relevant papers, which were screened and evaluated for inclusion. Full-papers were retrieved and relevant information was extracted (also plaque indices), including quality and risk of bias. Mean treatment effects were calculated to obtain weighted mean differences ( WMD) and 95% confidence intervals. Results After the process of screening and selection, 87 articles with 133 comparisons, were included in the review. The additional effects of the tested products were statistically significant in terms of Löe & Silness gingival index (46 comparisons, WMD −0.217), modified gingival index ( n = 23, −0.415), gingivitis severity index ( n = 26, −14.939%) or bleeding index ( n = 23, −7.626%), with significant heterogeneity. For plaque, additional effects were found for Turesky (66 studies, WMD −0.475), Silness & Löe ( n = 26, −0.109), and plaque severity ( n = 12, −23.4%) indices, with significant heterogeneity. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, formulations with specific agents for chemical plaque control provide statistically significant improvements in terms of gingival, bleeding and plaque indices. [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]