Albert-Kiszely A, Pjetursson B E, Salvi G E, Witt J, Hamilton A, Persson G R, Lang N P
School of Dental Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Aug;34(8):658-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01103.x.
To compare the effects of an experimental mouth rinse containing 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) (Crest Pro-Health) with those provided by a commercially available mouth rinse containing essential oils (EOs) (Listerine) on dental plaque accumulation and prevention of gingivitis in an unsupervised 6-month randomized clinical trial.
This double-blind, 6-month, parallel group, positively controlled study involved 151 subjects balanced and randomly assigned to either positive control (EO) or experimental (CPC) mouth rinse treatment groups. At baseline, subjects received a dental prophylaxis procedure and began unsupervised rinsing twice a day with 20 ml of their assigned mouthwash for 30 s after brushing their teeth for 1 min. Subjects were assessed for gingivitis and gingival bleeding by the Gingival index (GI) of Löe & Silness (1963) and plaque by the Silness & Löe (1964) Plaque index at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of rinsing. At 3 and 6 months, oral soft tissue health was assessed. Microbiological samples were also taken for community profiling by the DNA checkerboard method.
Results show that after 3 and 6 months of rinsing, there were no significant differences (p=0.05) between the experimental (CPC) and the positive control mouth rinse treatment groups for overall gingivitis status, gingival bleeding, and plaque accumulation. At 6 months, the covariant (baseline) adjusted mean GI and bleeding sites percentages for the CPC and the EO rinses were 0.52 and 0.53 and 8.7 and 9.3, respectively. Both mouth rinses were well tolerated by the subjects. Microbiological community profiles were similar for the two treatment groups. Statistically, a significant greater reduction in bleeding sites was observed for the CPC rinse versus the EO rinse.
The essential findings of this study indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis benefits between the experimental CPC mouth rinse and the positive control EO mouth rinse over a 6-month period.
在一项为期6个月的无监督随机临床试验中，比较含0.07%西吡氯铵（CPC）的实验性漱口水（佳洁士专业护理漱口水）与市售含精油（EO）漱口水（李施德林漱口水）对牙菌斑积聚和牙龈炎预防的效果。
这项双盲、为期6个月的平行组、阳性对照研究纳入了151名受试者，他们被均衡且随机地分配到阳性对照（EO）或实验（CPC）漱口水治疗组。在基线时，受试者接受了牙齿预防性治疗，并在每天刷牙1分钟后开始无监督地使用20毫升分配的漱口水漱口30秒，每天两次。在基线以及漱口3个月和6个月后，通过Löe和Silness（1963年）的牙龈指数（GI）评估受试者的牙龈炎和牙龈出血情况，并通过Silness和Löe（1964年）的菌斑指数评估牙菌斑情况。在3个月和6个月时，评估口腔软组织健康状况。还通过DNA棋盘法采集微生物样本进行群落分析。
结果显示，漱口3个月和6个月后，实验（CPC）组和阳性对照漱口水治疗组在总体牙龈炎状况、牙龈出血和牙菌斑积聚方面没有显著差异（p = 0.05）。在6个月时，CPC漱口水和EO漱口水经协变量（基线）调整后的平均GI和出血部位百分比分别为0.52和0.53以及8.7和9.3。两种漱口水受试者耐受性均良好。两个治疗组的微生物群落分析结果相似。从统计学上看，与EO漱口水相比，CPC漱口水的出血部位减少更为显著。
本研究的主要发现表明，在6个月的时间里，实验性CPC漱口水和阳性对照EO漱口水在抗牙菌斑和抗牙龈炎益处方面没有统计学上的显著差异。
