Marchetti Enrico, Tecco Simona, Caterini Eleonora, Casalena Fabio, Quinzi Vincenzo, Mattei Antonella, Marzo Giuseppe
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, P. le G. Liberatore, Ed. Delta 6, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
Dental School University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milano, via Le Mainarde 26, Pescara, 65124, Italy.
Trials. 2017 Mar 31;18(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1901-z.
To evaluate the antiplaque effects of an alcohol-free mouthrinse containing essential oils-Listerine Zero (LZ)-and an alcohol-based essential oils mouthrinse (EO+) compared with a positive control of 0.20% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (CHX) and a negative control of a placebo solution (saline), using an in vivo plaque regrowth model of three days.
The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 21 volunteers to compare four different mouthrinses, using a three-day plaque regrowth model. After receiving thorough professional prophylaxis at baseline, over the next three days each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and performed two daily rinses with 15 mL of the test mouthrinses. EO+ was compared with LZ. CHX rinse served as a positive control and a placebo solution as a negative control. At the end of each experimental period, the Plaque Index (PI) was assessed and a panelist completed through a visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire evaluating the organoleptic properties of each product. Each participant underwent a 14-day washout period and then there was another allocation.
LZ showed the same inhibitory activity on plaque regrowth compared with EO+ in the whole mouth (PI = 1.72 versus 1.65, respectively), but there was less of an effect compared to the CHX (overall PI of 1.07) and a more efficient activity than the saline solution negative control (PI = 2.31). The difference of 0.07 between LZ and EO+ was not statistically significant.
LZ seems to have the same inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth as EO+ and a less inhibiting effect than the CHX control. Both LZ and EO+, as well as the CHX control, show a better inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth than the placebo solution.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02894593 . Registered on 4 September 2016.
使用为期三天的体内菌斑再生长模型，评估不含酒精的含精油漱口水——李施德林零度（LZ）和含酒精的精油漱口水（EO+）与0.20%氯己定漱口水（CHX）阳性对照和安慰剂溶液（生理盐水）阴性对照相比的抗牙菌斑效果。
该研究设计为双盲、随机、交叉临床试验，纳入21名志愿者，采用为期三天的菌斑再生长模型比较四种不同的漱口水。在基线接受全面的专业口腔清洁后，接下来的三天里，每位志愿者避免所有口腔卫生措施，并用15毫升测试漱口水每天漱口两次。将EO+与LZ进行比较。CHX漱口水作为阳性对照，安慰剂溶液作为阴性对照。在每个实验期结束时，评估菌斑指数（PI），并由一名评审员通过视觉模拟量表（VAS）问卷完成对每种产品感官特性的评估。每位参与者经历14天的洗脱期，然后进行另一轮分配。
在全口范围内，LZ对菌斑再生长的抑制活性与EO+相同（PI分别为1.72和1.65），但与CHX相比效果较差（总体PI为1.07），且比生理盐水阴性对照（PI = 2.31）的活性更高。LZ和EO+之间0.07的差异无统计学意义。
LZ对菌斑再生长的抑制作用似乎与EO+相同，且比CHX对照的抑制作用小。LZ和EO+以及CHX对照对菌斑再生长的抑制作用均优于安慰剂溶液。
ClinicalTrials.gov，NCT02894593。于2016年9月4日注册。
