Suppr超能文献

氯己定和锦葵漱口液抗菌斑和牙龈炎效果的比较:随机交叉临床试验。

Comparison of the anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis efficacy of Chlorhexidine and Malva mouthwashes: Randomized crossover clinical trial.

机构信息

Graduate in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.

Doctoral Student in Dental Clinic: Periodontics, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.

出版信息

J Dent. 2024 Nov;150:105313. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105313. Epub 2024 Aug 22.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Although mechanical oral hygiene is widely practiced, it faces several challenges. Mouthwashes, such as chlorhexidine (CHX), are being explored as adjuncts to biofilm control, but their prolonged use has several side effects. Consequently, there is ongoing research into natural alternatives. This randomized crossover clinical study aimed to compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of 0.12 % CHX and a 5 % Malva sylvestris.

METHODS

Forty-four participants were involved in two phases, each comprising three stages with variations in the mouthwash solution used only. During the study, participants refrained from mechanical plaque removal for seven days. At first day, they received whole-mouth prophylaxis and oral health assessment. After three days, gingival inflammation assessment and prophylaxis in were performed in contralateral quadrants. Participants then used a randomly assigned mouthwash solution for four days. On the 7 day, they completed a questionnaire about their perception and appreciation of the mouthwash. Additionally, gingival inflammation and plaque index were also performed by a calibrated examiner. After a minimum 21-day washout period, participants entered the second phase, repeating the three stages.

RESULTS

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the Malva sylvestris and CHX groups regarding inflammation and plaque formation. However, CHX demonstrated a significantly greater mean reduction (7 - 4 day) in gingival inflammation compared to Malva (p = 0.02) (0.01 ± 0.19 and 0.00 ± 0.19, respectively). Additionally, participants using CHX reported a more pleasant taste and considered higher plaque control perception (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, both products exhibited similar antiplaque effects, but CHX outperformed Malva in controlling gingival inflammation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mouthwashes with Malva sylvestris may be a good alternative, in a short-term period, to control biofilm. However, lower antigingivitis efficacy may be expected when compared to chlorhexidine.

摘要

目的

尽管机械口腔卫生已广泛应用,但仍面临诸多挑战。洗必泰(CHX)等漱口水正被探索作为生物膜控制的辅助手段,但长期使用会产生多种副作用。因此,人们正在研究天然替代品。本随机交叉临床试验旨在比较 0.12%CHX 和 5%锦葵的抗菌斑和抗牙龈炎效果。

方法

44 名参与者参与了两个阶段,每个阶段包括三个阶段,仅改变使用的漱口液。在研究期间,参与者七天内不进行机械菌斑去除。第一天,他们接受全口预防和口腔健康评估。三天后,对牙龈炎进行评估并在对侧象限进行预防。然后,参与者使用随机分配的漱口液连续四天。第七天,他们完成了一份关于他们对漱口液的感知和评价的问卷。此外,还由经过校准的检查者进行牙龈炎症和菌斑指数检查。经过至少 21 天的洗脱期后,参与者进入第二阶段,重复三个阶段。

结果

结果显示,锦葵和 CHX 组在炎症和菌斑形成方面无统计学差异。然而,CHX 在控制牙龈炎症方面的平均降低程度(7-4 天)显著大于锦葵(p=0.02)(分别为 0.01±0.19 和 0.00±0.19)。此外,使用 CHX 的参与者报告称口感更宜人,并且认为控制菌斑的效果更好(p<0.05)。

结论

综上所述,两种产品均表现出相似的抗菌斑效果,但 CHX 在控制牙龈炎症方面优于锦葵。

临床意义

在短期内,锦葵漱口液可能是控制生物膜的一种良好替代方法。然而,与洗必泰相比,其抗牙龈炎效果可能较低。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验