Antiplaque effect of essential oils and 0.2% chlorhexidine on an in situ model of oral biofilm growth: a randomised clinical trial
To evaluate the in situ antiplaque effect after 4 days of using of 2 commercial antimicrobial agents in short term on undisturbed plaque-like biofilm. An observer-masked, crossover randomised clinical trial on 15 oral and systemically healthy volunteers between 20-30 years who were randomly and sequ...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2015-02, Vol.10 (2), p.e0117177-e0117177 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To evaluate the in situ antiplaque effect after 4 days of using of 2 commercial antimicrobial agents in short term on undisturbed plaque-like biofilm.
An observer-masked, crossover randomised clinical trial on 15 oral and systemically healthy volunteers between 20-30 years who were randomly and sequentially allocated in the same group which performed 3 interventions in different randomised sequences.
The participants wore an appliance in 3 different rinsing periods doing mouthwashes twice a day (1/0/1) with essential oils, 0.2% chlorhexidine or sterile water (negative control). At the end of each 4-day mouthwash period, samples were removed from the appliance. Posteriorly, after bacterial vital staining, samples were analysed using a Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope.
Bacterial vitality, thickness and covering grade by the biofilm after 4 days of applying each of the mouthwashes.
The essential oils and the 0.2% chlorhexidine were significantly more effective than the sterile water at reducing bacterial vitality, thickness and covering grade by the biofilm. No significant differences were found between the 0.2% chlorhexidine and the essential oils at reducing the bacterial vitality (13.2% vs. 14.7%). However, the 0.2% chlorhexidine showed more reduction than the essential oils in thickness (6.5 μm vs. 10.0 μm; p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0117177 |