Van Strydonck D A C, Timmerman M F, van der Velden U, van der Weijden G A
Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Mar;32(3):305-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00681.x.
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).
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.
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.
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.
0.2%的洗必泰（CHX）溶液仍是控制牙龈炎的“主要口腔抗菌剂”。然而，其副作用限制了使用者的接受度以及在预防牙科中0.2%CHX抗菌剂的长期使用。这促使了新配方的研发。本研究的目的是评估两种市售漱口水（含0.05%西吡氯铵（Cpc）的0.12%非酒精型CHX与含0.2%酒精型CHX）对牙菌斑抑制和味觉感知的影响。
本研究设计为单盲、随机两组平行实验，在3天的牙菌斑积聚模型中比较两种不同的市售漱口水。40名健康志愿者参与研究，并在试验期开始时接受了全面的口腔预防治疗。在72小时的非刷牙实验期内，受试者 abstained from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene（此处英文有误，推测为“abstained from all forms of mechanical oral cleansing”，即避免所有形式的机械口腔清洁），一组（试验组）使用15毫升含0.05% Cpc（Perioaid）的无酒精0.12% CHX（=18毫克）漱口水，每日两次，每次30秒。另一组（对照组）使用10毫升含11.8%乙醇的0.2% CHX（=20毫克）漱口水（Corsodyl），每日两次，每次60秒。牙菌斑形成72小时后，评估牙菌斑量。通过视觉模拟量表，询问受试者对所使用漱口水味道的评价。
CHX+Cpc组的平均牙菌斑指数为0.97，CHX+Alc组为0.78。非刷牙72小时后，两组之间的牙菌斑积聚无显著差异。对问题（味觉感知和余味）的回答显示两组之间存在统计学显著差异。从非常差到非常好的味觉评分（0 - 10），CHX+Cpc组的平均视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分为5.92，CHX+Alc组为4.10（p = 0.02）。从非常短到非常长的余味评分（0 - 10），CHX+Cpc组的平均视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分为7.24，CHX+Alc组为5.38。
在本研究设计的局限性内，可以得出结论，用含0.05% Cpc的非酒精型0.12% CHX漱口水（Perio - Aid）漱口与用酒精型0.2% CHX漱口水（Corsodyl）漱口无显著差异。似乎受试者对非酒精型CHX溶液的味道评价更好，但漱口水的余味在口腔中停留的时间更长。
