Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Chlorhexidine Gluconate, Raw Propolis and Hydrogen Peroxide on Dental Plaque and Gingival Inflammation

Abstract

Background: Plaque is the soft deposit that forms the biofilm consisting of microorganisms adhering to the tooth surface and is proved beyond doubt to be the initiator of gingival and periodontal disease. Plaque control is the mainstay in periodontal disease.
 Aim: To compare the effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, raw propolis and 3% hydrogen peroxide mouthwash on dental plaque and gingival inflammation.
 Materials and Methods: Thirty subjects in the age group of 20-40 years were enrolled in the study. Plaque index and Modified Gingival Index were recorded at baseline and oral prophylaxis was performed. Subjects were then randomly divided into three groups (n=10) and were asked to rinse with 10ml mouthwash twice daily for 15 days. Group I received 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouth wash, Group II raw propolis diluted with distilled water (1:1), and Group III 3% hydrogen peroxide (1:1) mouthwash. Subjects were recalled on 7 day and 28 day for re-evaluation and recording plaque index and modified gingival index. Statistical analysis was done to evaluate the efficacy of all the three mouthwashes.
 Results: The results showed that all the three mouthwashes were effective in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation. Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2% showed to be the most effective in reduction of dental plaque. Propolis was observed to be the most effective in reducing gingival inflammation over a period of 28 days.
 Conclusion: Propolis can be effectively used as a mouthwash without any potential side effects as an alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash in reducing gingival inflammation.

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Oral Rinsing with H2O2 on Clinical and Microbiological Parameters Related to Plaque, Gingivitis, and Microbes

“…It should be noted that five databases were searched. The additional search strategies did not add any study to the present review, except for one additional study identified in the Google Scholar database [ 10 ]. The retrieved studies were very distinct in all aspects, preventing the possibility of a meta-analysis.…”

“…It may be detected that only one study presented low risk of bias in all criteria analyzed [ 11 ]. Four other studies presented an overall high risk of bias [ 10 , 12 – 14 ]. The criteria randomization process showed unclear risk of bias in almost all included studies.…”

“…It should be highlighted that 10 studies evaluated plaque parameters, of which six were performed as clinical trials allowing mechanical plaque control [ 11 , 12 , 15 , 19 – 21 ]. In one, it was not possible to determine if mechanical plaque control was possible [ 10 ]. All studies that used H 2 O 2 as adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene were performed with the concentration of 1.5% .…”

“…All studies that used H 2 O 2 as adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene were performed with the concentration of 1.5% . Those studies demonstrate a higher antiplaque efficacy of chlorhexidine in comparison to H 2 O 2 , except two, in which H 2 O 2 presented similar efficacy to chlorhexidine [ 10 , 21 ]. Generally, very little differences from negative controls were detected.…”

“…Nine studies were included in this outcome [ 10 – 12 , 15 , 16 , 18 – 21 ], six allowed mechanical plaque control [ 11 , 12 , 15 , 19 – 21 ]. In one study, it was not clear if mechanical plaque control was allowed [ 10 ]. In these parameters, H 2 O 2 mouth rinse performs better than negative controls, however less than chlorhexidine.…”