• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两种日用漱口液的疗效比较:使用实验性牙龈炎模型的随机临床试验。

Comparative efficacy of two daily use mouthrinses: randomized clinical trial using an experimental gingivitis model.

机构信息

Division of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Scientific and Professional Affairs, Research and Development, Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Healthcare Products Worldwide, Morris Plains, NJ, United States of America.

出版信息

Braz Oral Res. 2011 Jul-Aug;25(4):338-44. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242011000400010.

DOI:10.1590/s1806-83242011000400010
PMID:21860922
Abstract

Two antimicrobial agents, a fixed combination of essential oils (EOs) and 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are found in commercially available mouthrinses, Listerine® Antiseptic and Crest® Pro HealthTM, respectively. Both mouthrinses have been shown to control dental plaque and gingivitis in short and longer term studies. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two mouthrinses using a 2-week experimental gingivitis model. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthrinse groups: a fixed combination of EOs, 0.07% CPC, or negative control (C) rinse. Following baseline clinical assessments and a dental prophylaxis, subjects began a two-week period in which they rinsed twice daily with their assigned rinse and abstained from any mechanical oral hygiene procedures or other oral care products. Subjects were reassessed at the end of the two-week period. One hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized and 142 completed this study. After two weeks use, the EOs rinse was superior (p < 0.011) to the CPC rinse in inhibiting the development of gingivitis, plaque, and bleeding, with 9.4% and 6.6% reductions compared to CPC for gingivitis and plaque, respectively. Both rinses were superior to the negative control rinse (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the essential oil-containing mouthrinse has superior antiplaque/antigingivitis effectiveness compared to the 0.07% CPC-containing mouthrinse without mechanical oral hygiene influence.

摘要

两种抗菌剂,一种是植物精油(EOs)的固定组合,另一种是 0.07%西吡氯铵(CPC),存在于市售的漱口水中,分别是李施德林®抗菌漱口水和佳洁士®Pro-HealthTM。这两种漱口液都已被证明可以在短期和长期研究中控制牙菌斑和牙龈炎。本研究旨在使用为期两周的实验性牙龈炎模型来确定这两种漱口液的比较效果。合格的受试者被随机分配到三种漱口液组之一:植物精油的固定组合、0.07% CPC 或阴性对照(C)漱口液。在基线临床评估和牙齿洁治后,受试者开始为期两周的时间,每天用指定的漱口液漱口两次,并避免任何机械口腔卫生程序或其他口腔护理产品。在两周结束时对受试者进行重新评估。共有 147 名受试者被随机分组,其中 142 名完成了这项研究。经过两周的使用,EOs 漱口液在抑制牙龈炎、牙菌斑和出血的发展方面优于 CPC 漱口液(p<0.011),与 CPC 相比,牙龈炎和牙菌斑分别减少了 9.4%和 6.6%。两种漱口液均优于阴性对照组(p<0.001)。本研究表明,含植物精油的漱口液在抗菌斑/抗牙龈炎方面的效果优于含 0.07% CPC 的漱口液,且不受机械口腔卫生的影响。

相似文献

1
Comparative efficacy of two daily use mouthrinses: randomized clinical trial using an experimental gingivitis model.两种日用漱口液的疗效比较:使用实验性牙龈炎模型的随机临床试验。
Braz Oral Res. 2011 Jul-Aug;25(4):338-44. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242011000400010.
2
A clinical investigation of the efficacy of a commercial mouthrinse containing 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride to control established dental plaque and gingivitis.一项关于含0.05%西吡氯铵的商用漱口水控制已形成牙菌斑和牙龈炎疗效的临床研究。
J Clin Dent. 2009;20(2):55-61.
3
Comparison of the effects of cetylpyridinium chloride with an essential oil mouth rinse on dental plaque and gingivitis - a six-month randomized controlled clinical trial.氯化十六烷基吡啶与一种精油漱口水对牙菌斑和牙龈炎影响的比较——一项为期六个月的随机对照临床试验。
J Clin Periodontol. 2007 Aug;34(8):658-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01103.x.
4
Superiority of essential oils versus 0.075% CPC-containing mouthrinse: a two-week randomized clinical trial.精油与含0.075%西吡氯铵漱口水的疗效比较:一项为期两周的随机临床试验。
J Clin Dent. 2013;24(3):94-9.
5
Comparative clinical trial of two antigingivitis mouthrinses.两种抗牙龈炎漱口水的对比临床试验
Am J Dent. 2005 Jul;18 Spec No:15A-17A.
6
Gingival health benefits of essential-oil and cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinses: a 6-month randomized clinical study.精油和氯化十六烷基吡啶漱口水对牙龈健康的益处:一项为期6个月的随机临床研究。
Am J Dent. 2014 Jun;27(3):119-26.
7
Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of three antiseptic mouthrinses: a two week randomized clinical trial.三种防腐剂漱口液的抗菌斑和抗牙龈炎效果比较:为期两周的随机临床试验。
Braz Oral Res. 2009 Jul-Sep;23(3):319-25. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242009000300016.
8
Superiority of an essential oil mouthrinse when compared with a 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride containing mouthrinse: a six-month study.与含有 0.05%西吡氯铵的漱口液相比,一种精油漱口液的优势:一项为期六个月的研究。
Int Dent J. 2010 Jun;60(3):175-80.
9
Antibacterial and antiplaque effects of a novel, alcohol-free oral rinse with cetylpyridinium chloride.含氯化十六烷基吡啶的新型无醇口腔含漱液的抗菌和抗牙菌斑作用
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005 Feb 15;6(1):1-9.
10
Comparative efficacy of an antiseptic mouthrinse and an antiplaque/antigingivitis dentifrice. A six-month clinical trial.一种抗菌漱口水和一种抗牙菌斑/抗牙龈炎牙膏的疗效比较。一项为期六个月的临床试验。
J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 May;132(5):670-5. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0245.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride and essential oil mouthwashes in reducing plaque and gingivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.十六烷基氯化吡啶和精油漱口水在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎方面疗效的比较评价:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Evid Based Dent. 2025 May 24. doi: 10.1038/s41432-025-01163-2.
2
The Evaluation of the Effects of Two Probiotic Strains on the Oral Ecosystem: A Randomized Clinical Trial.两种益生菌菌株对口腔生态系统影响的评估:一项随机临床试验。
Front Oral Health. 2022 Mar 30;3:825017. doi: 10.3389/froh.2022.825017. eCollection 2022.
3
The use of mouthwash containing essential oils (LISTERINE®) to improve oral health: A systematic review.
使用含精油漱口水(李施德林®)改善口腔健康:一项系统评价。
Saudi Dent J. 2018 Jan;30(1):2-6. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.12.004. Epub 2017 Dec 19.