Alcohol-free essential oils containing mouthrinse efficacy on three-day supragingival plaque regrowth: a randomized crossover clinical trial

Abstract

BackgroundTo 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsLZ 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.ConclusionsLZ 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.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02894593. Registered on 4 September 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1901-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In Situ Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils with and without Alcohol on Oral Biofilm: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…This is the first study in the literature to compare the antiplaque effect of T-EO and Af-EO solutions in an in situ model of non-destructured PL-biofilm grown after 4 days, with the thickness, CG and BV analyzed. However, some studies in the literature have evaluated the effects of both antiseptics at 3–4 days (Marchetti et al, 2011 , 2017a , b ; Pizzo et al, 2013 ; Ulkur et al, 2013 ). In these studies, the authors compare the antiplaque effect assessed by clinical parameters (Marchetti et al, 2011 , 2017a , b ; Pizzo et al, 2013 ) or the efficacy of both solutions at reducing S. mutans levels (Ulkur et al, 2013 ).…”

“…However, some studies in the literature have evaluated the effects of both antiseptics at 3–4 days (Marchetti et al, 2011 , 2017a , b ; Pizzo et al, 2013 ; Ulkur et al, 2013 ). In these studies, the authors compare the antiplaque effect assessed by clinical parameters (Marchetti et al, 2011 , 2017a , b ; Pizzo et al, 2013 ) or the efficacy of both solutions at reducing S. mutans levels (Ulkur et al, 2013 ). Marchetti et al ( 2011 ) used a 3-day plaque growth model in which the area occupied by plaque was evaluated after performing two daily rinses for 1 min with 20 mL of different EO solutions.…”

“…In our opinion, this methodological aspect can significantly influence the findings obtained. In fact, recently, another study from Marchetti's group (Marchetti et al, 2017b ) compared the alcohol-free and the traditional formulations with ethanol from the same manufacturer (Johnson & Johnson). They found that both solutions were effective compared to the negative control (plaque index = 1.7 vs. 2.3), which confirms the importance of comparing formulations from the same manufacturer.…”

“…As Af-EO solution has come to the market, it seems appropriate to compare their antibacterial effects to those of traditional mouthwashes. Although, there are some studies evaluating these effects of T-EO and Af-EO (Marchetti et al, 2009 , 2011 , 2017a , b ; Charles et al, 2012 ; Pizzo et al, 2013 ; Ulkur et al, 2013 ), none of them have assessed and compared their substantivity and antiplaque impact in an in situ model of a non-destructured oral biofilm (PL-biofilm). For this reason, the aim of the present study was to compare the in situ antibacterial activity (immediate effect, substantivity and antiplaque effect) of EO with and without alcohol on the PL-biofilm.…”

<p>CAD/CAM Customized Glass Fiber Post and Core With Digital Intraoral Impression: A Case Report</p>

“…3 Also, saliva due to an important role in microbial oral flora regulation. [4][5][6] After endodontic treatment, a proper restorative technique is necessary to ensure coronal seal 7,8 and protection of residual dental structure; 9 teeth which have lost two or more walls need to be restored with posts to increase retention and stability of final restoration. 10−12 Several materials have been proposed to build posts; metallic posts belong to I and II generations, fiber, ceramic and zirconium oxide are III and IV generations.…”