↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Alcohol-free essential oils containing mouthrinse efficacy on three-day supragingival plaque regrowth: a randomized crossover clinical trial
Published in
Trials, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13063-017-1901-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enrico Marchetti, Simona Tecco, Eleonora Caterini, Fabio Casalena, Vincenzo Quinzi, Antonella Mattei, Giuseppe Marzo

Abstract

To 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. The 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. LZ 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. LZ 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. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02894593 . Registered on 4 September 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 9 10%
Researcher 6 7%
Lecturer 3 3%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 41 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 38 43%