Netuschil L, Weiger R, Preisler R, Brecx M
University of Tuebingen, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Tuebingen, Germany.
Eur J Oral Sci. 1995 Dec;103(6):355-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1995.tb01857.x.
The aim of this double-blind study was to enumerate the total number of living and dead bacteria on defined tooth areas during the application of antibacterial mouthrinses. After prophylaxis, 40 students refrained from all oral hygiene measures for 3 d, during which they rinsed with a phenolic compound (Listerine), an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride solution (Meridol), 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) or a control solution (0.02% quinine-hydrochloride). The plaque index (P1I) was recorded at the start and the end of the investigation. Total bacterial counts (BC) and colony-forming units (CFU) of 1d-, 2d- and 3d-old dentogingival plaque were determined. The plating efficiency (PE) was calculated as a percentage of CFU/BC and the portion of vital microflora estimated by a vital fluorescence technique (VF). All groups started with a P1I approximating 0.1. On day 3, the P1I values were 1.21 in the control group and 0.51, 0.37 and 0.14 after Listerine, Meridol and CHX use, respectively. A tremendous variation existed between the numbers of viable bacteria found per mm2 on the enamel surface and day 3 (CHX: 0.2; Meridol: 300; Listerine; 6x10(4); control: 2x10(6)), while higher total numbers of bacteria were concomitantly present (CHX and Meridol: 1-2x10(4); Listerine: 2x10(5); control: 2x10(6)). Both vitality parameters PE and VF reached 92% in the control group at day 3, but only 7% after CHX use. With Meridol and Listerine, the corresponding PE values were 3% and 43%, respectively, while the VF values reached 48% and 54%. The PII, BC, CFU and PE values of the CHX and the Meridol groups differed significantly from those of the control group. In contrast, Listerine showed no difference as compared to the control rinse. Due to the strong antibacterial action of CHX and Meridol during their use, almost only dead or non-proliferating bacteria were found on the tooth surfaces. Thus, only a thin plaque could develop. As a clinical consequence, both substances showed retardation of plaque development as reflected by significantly reduced plaque indices.
这项双盲研究的目的是在使用抗菌漱口水期间，对特定牙齿区域的活细菌和死细菌总数进行计数。预防处理后，40名学生在3天内不采取任何口腔卫生措施，在此期间，他们分别用一种酚类化合物（李斯德林漱口水）、一种胺氟化物/氟化亚锡溶液（美利道漱口水）、0.2%氯己定（洗必泰）或一种对照溶液（0.02%盐酸奎宁）进行漱口。在研究开始和结束时记录菌斑指数（P1I）。测定1天、2天和3天龄的牙菌斑龈缘菌斑的细菌总数（BC）和菌落形成单位（CFU）。计算平板接种效率（PE），以CFU/BC的百分比表示，并通过活菌荧光技术（VF）估计活菌微生物群的比例。所有组开始时的P1I约为0.1。在第3天，对照组的P1I值为1.21，使用李斯德林漱口水、美利道漱口水和洗必泰后分别为0.51、0.37和0.14。在牙釉质表面每平方毫米发现的活菌数量与第3天之间存在巨大差异（洗必泰：0.2；美利道漱口水：300；李斯德林漱口水：6×10⁴；对照组：2×10⁶），同时存在更高的细菌总数（洗必泰和美利道漱口水：1 - 2×10⁴；李斯德林漱口水：2×10⁵；对照组：2×10⁶）。在第3天，对照组的活力参数PE和VF均达到92%，但使用洗必泰后仅为7%。使用美利道漱口水和李斯德林漱口水时，相应的PE值分别为3%和43%，而VF值分别达到48%和54%。洗必泰组和美利道漱口水组的PII、BC、CFU和PE值与对照组有显著差异。相比之下，李斯德林漱口水与对照漱口水相比没有差异。由于洗必泰和美利道漱口水在使用期间具有很强的抗菌作用，在牙齿表面几乎只发现死细菌或不增殖的细菌。因此，只能形成薄薄的菌斑。作为临床结果，两种物质均表现出菌斑形成延迟，这通过显著降低的菌斑指数得以体现。
