Clinical effects of commercially available mouthrinses on the development of plaque, gingivitis and enamel surface free energy

Abstract

In this study the clinical effects of 6 commercially available mouthrinses on the development of plaque and gingivitis and on the tooth surface free energy were evaluated in vivo. The following rinses were used: Hibident ® (containing 0-2% chlorhexidine), Prodent ® (containing 005% sodium fluoride) Meridol ® (containing 125 ppm aminefluoride, 125 ppm stannous fluoride), Merocet ® (containing 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride), Veadent ® (containing 0.03% sanguinarine) and Listerine ® (containing several phenolic compounds). Sixty test persons were selected and requested to employ the same, non-fluoridated toothpaste over 14 days. At days 0 and 14, the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), planimetric plaque index (PP) and the tooth surface free energy were assessed. After this preparatory phase, all oral hygiene was stopped for 6 days and only a rinse twice a day (30 s, 10 ml was used). After this period, the above parameters were measured again. In addition, the microbial composition of the plaque was determined at the beginning (day 0) and the end of the study (day 20). Hibident ® (incorporated in this study as a positive control) demonstrated the lowest PI after 6 days use, whereas Meridol ® demonstrated the lowest GI. PI and GI scores were highest after the use of Prodent ® (incorporated as a negative control). None of the products were able to alter the tooth surface free energy markedly or to cause great shifts in microbial composition of the plaque. Since in this study, 6 products were evaluated in an identical way, the results provide a rigorous basis for comparing their clinical efficacies.

Clinical and microbiological effects of commercially available dentifrice containing amine fluoride: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…[24] AF adsorption to salivary pellicles has been extensively studied in the past[25] with respect to its effects on the charge and hydrophobicity of pellicle surfaces, but never with respect to its effects on tooth surfaces in vivo , as can be established through intraoral contact angles measurements. [26] Recent studies have shown that the hydrophobicity of tooth surfaces goes through a daily cycle, becoming hydrophilic after brushing and recovering to relatively hydrophobic values during the day, depending on the type of toothpaste employed. [27] Interestingly, in vitro water contact angles on toothpaste-treated and untreated pellicle surfaces were generally more hydrophilic than those observed in vivo , likely because in vivo greasy substances adsorbed from food and initial biofilm formation form part of the pellicle.…”

Effects of Amine Fluoride on Biofilm Growth and Salivary Pellicles

“…After a minimum period of at least 1 week, in vivo water contact angles were measured on the teeth from enlarged photographs, taken with a camera especially designed for intraoral use [Perdok et al, 1991]. Contact angles were measured on 2 different days in a week and this was repeated twice.…”

“…Because of its cationic nature, AmF are also expected to interact with negatively charged bacterial cell surfaces as well as with salivary pellicle surfaces through electrostatic interactions [Shani et al, 1996]. AmF adsorption to salivary pellicles has been extensively studied in the past [De Jong et al, 1984;Shani et al, 1998] with respect to its effects on the charge and hydrophobicity of pellicle surfaces, but never with respect to its effects on tooth surfaces in vivo, as can be established through intraoral contact angles measurements [Perdok et al, 1991]. Recent studies have shown that the hydrophobicity of tooth surfaces goes through a daily cycle, becoming hydrophilic after brushing and recovering to relatively hydrophobic values during the day, depending on the type of toothpaste employed .…”

Influence of dentifrices and dietary components in saliva on wettability of pellicle‐coated enamel in vitro and in vivo

“…Research in various laboratories has suggested significant differences in conditioning film development under controlled laboratory or in vivo conditions and within typical patient experience (2, 3). de J ong et al .…”

“…Studies with reconstituted human whole saliva (RHWS) showed reductions in water contact angles on enamel during pellicle formation to 30–35°. Interestingly, intraoral contact angles on the front incisors of human volunteers showed that the pellicle‐coated enamel surface under clinical conditions is considerably more hydrophobic and water contact angles of around 56° have been published for a group of 60 volunteers (3). It is possible that the increased hydrophobicity of in vivo pellicles is a result of adsorption of dietary and dentifrice components from saliva, and in vivo pellicles must be thought of as a film of adsorbed salivary, dietary and dentifrice components.…”