Harper P R, Milsom S, Wade W, Addy M, Moran J, Newcombe R G
Department of Oral and Dental Science, Bristol University, England.
J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Sep;22(9):723-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00833.x.
The aim of this study was to determine the value of screening studies to assess the efficacy of antiseptic mouthrinse products relative to proven products. The products tested were 6 antiseptic mouthrinses available in France. 4 contained chlorhexidine (Eludril, Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine) with Hibident considered the positive control. 1 product contained cetylpyridinium chloride (Alodont) and 1 hexetidine (Hextril). Saline was used as the negative control. The 1st study assessed the persistence of action of the products by recording salivary bacterial counts before and up to 7 h after single rinses. The 2nd study measured the inhibition of plaque regrowth, from a zero baseline, in the absence of tooth-brushing over a 4-day period. Both studies used blind randomised crossover designs balanced for residual effects. Salivary bacterial count reductions with time were highly significantly greater for Parodex to 5 h and Hibident and Prexidine to 7 h; There were no significant differences between the latter three chlorhexidine rinses except at 3 h, when decrements were significantly less with Parodex. Despite a mean trend in favour, Alodont, Eludril and Hextril were not significantly different from saline. Plaque inhibition by area and index was highly significantly different between products. Hibident, Parodex and Prexidine showed similar plaque inhibition and were significantly more effective than all other rinses. Eludril and Hextril were significantly more effective than saline but Alodont was not. Taken with the associated study in vitro and published reports on the same or similar products, it is apparent that efficacy of a product cannot be assumed merely because it contains a known active plaque inhibitor.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
本研究的目的是确定筛查研究对于评估抗菌漱口水产品相对于已证实有效的产品的功效的价值。所测试的产品为法国市场上可得的6种抗菌漱口水。4种含有氯己定(伊洛德、洗必泰、派罗迪克斯和普雷西丁),其中洗必泰被视为阳性对照。1种产品含有氯化十六烷基吡啶(阿洛顿),1种含有己脒定(赫克特里尔)。生理盐水用作阴性对照。第一项研究通过记录单次漱口前及漱口后长达7小时的唾液细菌计数来评估产品的作用持续性。第二项研究在4天内不刷牙的情况下,从零基线开始测量牙菌斑再生长的抑制情况。两项研究均采用盲法随机交叉设计,并对残留效应进行了平衡。派罗迪克斯在5小时内、洗必泰和普雷西丁在7小时内唾液细菌计数的减少随时间推移极为显著;后三种氯己定漱口水之间除了在3小时时有显著差异(此时派罗迪克斯的减少量显著较少)外,没有显著差异。尽管阿洛顿、伊洛德和赫克特里尔有一定的平均趋势,但它们与生理盐水没有显著差异。各产品之间牙菌斑抑制面积和指数有极显著差异。洗必泰、派罗迪克斯和普雷西丁表现出相似的牙菌斑抑制效果,且比所有其他漱口水显著更有效。伊洛德和赫克特里尔比生理盐水显著更有效,但阿洛顿并非如此。结合相关的体外研究以及关于相同或类似产品的已发表报告来看,显然不能仅仅因为一种产品含有已知的有效牙菌斑抑制剂就假定其具有功效。(摘要截选至250词)