Comparing the Effect of 0.06%, 0.12% and 0.2% Chlorhexidine on Plaque, Bleeding and Side Effects in an Experimental Gingivitis Model

A Parallel Group, Double Masked Randomized Clinical Trial

Maliha Haydari; Ayse Gul Bardakci; Odd Carsten Koldsland; Anne Merete Aass; Leiv Sandvik; Hans R. Preus

Disclosures

BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(118) 

In This Article

Results

From weekly reports and questionnaires, it was shown that 59 participants had followed the instructions diligently during the 21 days that the experiment lasted. One participant had violated the protocol and was excluded following the interview at day 14, resulting in a total study population of 59 persons at the final scoring, still leaving the sample size large enough for conclusions.

Q1: Rinsing Only Quadrant

Plaque index.[13] Rinsing with 0.2% CHX resulted in an average plaque score of all surfaces combined, approximal surfaces only or mesial, buccal, distal surfaces together (i.e. the palatal surfaces taken out) after 21 days, which was statistically significantly lower (p < 0.05) than the results in the two other groups, the latter with no statistically significant difference between them (Table 1).

Twenty-one days of rinsing with these three commercial CHX products produced no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the plaque scores on the buccal and palatal surfaces combined or the palatal surfaces alone (Table 1).

Gingival index.[12] When mouth rinse was the only plaque-inhibiting procedure used, the gingival index scores produced no statistically significant differences among the three groups after 21 days, neither as an average of all sites or approximal, buccal and palatal sites separately (Table 2).

Turesky Modified Quigley & Hine Index.[11] Results showed no statistically significant differences between the three solutions (Table 2).

Q2: Rinsing and Mechanical Oral Hygiene Quadrant

In the quadrant where both mechanical and chemical plaque control were performed, no statistically significant difference was found between the three groups, neither by the Quigley & Hine[11] (Table 2) nor the Løe & Silness[12] (Table 1) plaque indices. A close to 0 plaque- and gingival scores were registered in all patients.

Adverse Effects

Subjective complaints of discomfort and registration of clinical adverse effects were registered at day 7, 14 and 21 in all three groups. There were no statistically significant differences in self-reported taste sensations, soreness of oral mucosa/tongue/gingiva, feeling of dryness or discoloration in the participants among the three groups (Table 3).

However, statistically significant differences were observed with "loss of taste" and "numb feeling", where respectively 65% - 60%, 55% - 40% and 21% - 26% complained about "loss of taste" - "numb feeling" in respectively the 0.2%, 0.12% and 0.06% CHX groups (Table 3).

No clinical adverse effects like erosions of the oral mucosa were registered, except that slight discoloration of teeth was registered by the clinical research staff. However, no difference was recorded between the groups (Data not shown).

Raw data with explanations are displayed in Additional File 2.

processing....