Addy M, Moran J, Newcombe R, Warren P
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Bristol, England.
J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Dec;22(12):923-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb01796.x.
Staining of teeth and mucous membranes is a well-known side-effect with chlorhexidine mouthrinses in which dietary chromogens play an important rôle. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a co-polymer anti-adhesive agent would prevent staining by a low concentration chlorhexidine solution. Additionally, the possibility that an essential oil/phenolic rinse product may cause staining was investigated. The rinses studied were the anti-adhesive alone and combined with 0.02% chlorhexidine and the essential oil/phenolic rinse. These were positioned against a positive control rise, 0.2% chlorhexidine, and a negative control rinse, water. The study was a single blind 5-treatment, randomised Latin square cross-over design, incorporating balance for carry-over effects. 15 volunteers participated and on Day 1 of each study period were rendered stain free by scaling and polishing of the teeth. Oral hygiene was suspended and 8 x per day subjects rinsed under supervision, firstly with the allocated formulation and then with 10 ml of warm black tea. On Day 4, tooth and tongue staining was scored by area and intensity (colour). A washout period of at least 3 1/2 days was permitted between treatment periods when oral hygiene was resumed. Before the study and during washouts, volunteers practised tongue brushing. Tooth and tongue staining was significantly increased with 0.2% chlorhexidine compared to the essential oil/phenolic rinse which in turn was significantly increased compared to the other 3 rinses. The antiadhesive/chlorhexidine rinse produced no more staining than the anti-adhesive or water rise. However, the parallel plaque regrowth study suggests this inhibition of staining resulted from the vitiation of the chlorhexidine activity by the antiadhesive. The methodology would appear a simple and quick way of assessing the propensity of mouthrinses to cause extrinsic staining.
牙齿和黏膜染色是洗必泰漱口水众所周知的副作用，其中饮食中的色原质起了重要作用。本研究的目的是确定一种共聚物抗黏附剂是否能防止低浓度洗必泰溶液导致的染色。此外，还研究了精油/酚类漱口水产品可能导致染色的可能性。所研究的漱口水包括单独的抗黏附剂、与0.02%洗必泰混合的产品以及精油/酚类漱口水。将这些漱口水与阳性对照漱口水（0.2%洗必泰）和阴性对照漱口水（水）进行比较。该研究采用单盲5治疗组随机拉丁方交叉设计，并考虑了残留效应的平衡。15名志愿者参与，在每个研究阶段的第1天，通过洗牙和抛光使牙齿无染色。暂停口腔卫生，受试者每天在监督下漱口8次，首先使用分配的配方，然后用10毫升温红茶漱口。在第4天，根据面积和强度（颜色）对牙齿和舌头染色进行评分。在治疗阶段之间允许至少3.5天的洗脱期，在此期间恢复口腔卫生。在研究前和洗脱期，志愿者进行舌部刷牙。与精油/酚类漱口水相比，0.2%洗必泰导致牙齿和舌头染色显著增加，而精油/酚类漱口水又比其他3种漱口水染色显著增加。抗黏附剂/洗必泰漱口水产生的染色不比抗黏附剂或水漱口水多。然而，平行的菌斑再生长研究表明，这种对染色的抑制是由于抗黏附剂使洗必泰活性降低所致。该方法似乎是一种评估漱口水导致外源性染色倾向的简单快速方法。
