Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

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

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

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Chlorhexidine is the gold standard of dental plaque prevention. The aim of the present study was to compare the plaque and gingivitis inhibiting effect of commercial products containing 0.2%, 0.12% and 0.06% chlorhexidine in a modified experimental gingivitis model.

Methods

In three groups of healthy volunteers, experimental gingivitis was induced and monitored over 21 days and simultaneously treated with the commercial solutions containing 0.2%, 0.12% and 0.06% chlorhexidine. The maxillary right quadrant of each individual received mouthwash only, whereas the maxillary left quadrant was subject to both rinsing and mechanical oral hygiene. Compliance and side effects were monitored at days 7, 14, and 21. Plaque and gingivitis scores were obtained at baseline and day 21.

Results

The commercial mouthwash containing 0.2% chlorhexidine resulted in statistically significantly lower plaque scores than the 0.12 and 0.06% mouthwashes after 21 days use, whereas no statistically significant difference was found between the effects of the two latter.

Conclusion

A commercially available mouthwash containing 0.2% chlorhexidine had statistically significant better effect in preventing dental plaque than the 0.12% and 0.06% solutions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02911766. Registration date: September 9th 2016.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Corsodyl (0.2%), GSK, Norway
 
2
Flux Pro Klorhexidine (0.12%), Actavis, Norway
 
3
Corsodaily® (0.06%), GSK, Norway
 
4
Corsodyl 0.2% CHX has been alcohol free since 2012
 
Literature
1.
Davies A. The mode of action of chlorhexidine. J Periodont Res. 1973;12:68–75.CrossRef
2.
Denton GW. Chlorhexidine. In: Block SS, ed. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation, 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1991. pp. 274–289.
3.
4.
Löe H, Schiott CR. The effect of mouthrinses and topical application of chlorhexidine on the development of dental plaque and gingivitis in man. J Periodont Res. 1970;5:79–83.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
Addy M. Chlorhexidine compared with other locally delivered anti-microbials. A short review. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13:957–64.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Owens J, Addy M, Faulkner J, Lockwood C, Adair R. A short-term clinical study design to investigate the chemical plaque inhibitory properties of mouthrinses when used as adjuncts to toothpastes: applied to chlorhexidine. J Clin Periodontol. 1997;10:732–7.CrossRef
8.
Gjermo P, Rølla G, Årskaug L. Effect on dental plaque formation and some in vitro properties of 12 bis-biguanides. J Periodont Res. 1973;8:81–8.CrossRef
9.
Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters; a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2010;37:829–39.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Quigley GA, Hein JW. Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and powerbrushing. J Am Dent Assoc. 1962;65:26–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Turesky S, Gilmore ND, Glickman L. Reduced plaque formation by the chloromethyl analogue of victamin C. J Clin Periodontol. 1970;41:41–3.CrossRef
12.
Löe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Clin Periodontol. 1967;38:610–6.CrossRef
13.
14.
Preus HR, Aass AM, Hansen BF, Moe B, Gjermo P. A randomized, single-blind, parallel-group clinical study to evaluate the effect of soluble beta-1,3/1,6-glucan on experimental gingivitis in man. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35:236–41.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Preus HR, Koldsland OC, Aass AM, Sandvik L, Hansen F. The plaque- and gingivitis-inhibiting capacity of a commercially available essential oil product. A parallel, split-mouth, single blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study. Acta Odont Scand. 2013;71:1613–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Altman DG. Clinical trials. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1991. p. 86–89,456.
17.
Flötra L, Gjermo P, Rölla G, Waerhaug J. A 4-month study on the effect of chlorhexidine mouth washes on 50 soldiers. Scand J Dent Res. 1972;80:10–7.PubMed
18.
19.
Zhang TT, Tang SS, Fu LJ. The effectiveness of different concentrations of chlorhexidine for prevention of ventilator associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis. J Clin Nurse. 2014;23:1461–75.CrossRef
20.
O'Grady NP, Alexander M, Burns LA, Dellinger EP, Garland J, Heard SO, Lipsett PA, Masur H, Mermel LA, Pearson ML, Raad II, Randolph AG, Rupp ME, Saint S. Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(Suppl 1):1–34.CrossRef
21.
Doyle JS, Buising KL, Thursky KA, Worth LJ, Richards MJ. Epidemiology of infections acquired in intensive care units. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;32:115–38.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Raines K, Rosen K. The effect of chlorhexidine bathing on rates of nosocomial infections among the critically ill population: an analysis of current clinical research and recommendations for practice. Dimensions Crit Care Nurse. 2016;35:84–91.CrossRef
23.
Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, Miller HJ, Awad SS, Crosby CT, Mosier MC, Alsharif A, Berger DH. Chlorhexidine alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. New Eng J Med. 2010;362:18–26.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Mimoz O, Lucet JC, Kerforne T, Pascal J, Souweine B, Goudet V, Mercat A, Bouadma L, Lasocki S, Alfandari S, Friggeri A, Wallet F, Allou N, Ruckly S, Balayn D, Lepape A, Timsit JF, CLEAN trial investigators. Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol, with and without skin scrubbing, for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection (CLEAN): an open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled, two-by-two factorial trial. Lancet. 2015;386:2069–77.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kampf G. What is left to justify the use of chlorhexidine in hand hygiene? J Hosp Infect. 2008;70:27–34.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Mourouga P, Sauvan V, Touveneau S, Perneger TV. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Lancet. 2000;356:1307–12.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Meyer B, Cookson B. Does microbial resistance or adaptation to biocides create hazard in infection prevention and control? J Hosp Infect. 2010;76:200–5.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Sickbert-Bennet EE. Outbreaks associated with contaminated antiseptics and disinfectants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:4217–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Sreenivasan P, Gaffar A. Antiplaque biocides and bacterial resistance: a review. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29:965–74.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Farrand RJ, Williams A. Evaluation of single-use packs of hospital disinfectants. Lancet. 1973;1:591–3.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Rupp ME. Do chlorhexidine patient baths prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections? Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:8–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Harper PR, Milson S, Wade W, Addy M, Moran J, Newcombe RG. An approach to efficacy screening of mouthrinses: studies on a group of French products (II). Inhibition of salivary bacteria and plaque in vivo. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22:723–7.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Keijser JA, Verkade H, Timmerman MF, Van der Weijden GA. Comparison of 2 commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses. J Periodontol. 2003;74:214–8.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Neto CAF, Parolo CC, Rosing CK, Maltz M. Comparative analysis of the effect of two chlorhexidine mouthrinses on plaque accumulation and gingival bleeding. Brazil Oral Res. 2008;22:139–44.CrossRef
36.
Pizzo G, Guiglia R, Imburgia M, Pizzo I, D'Angelo M, Guiliana G. The effects of antimicrobial sprays and maouthrinses on supragingival plaque regrowth: a comparative study. J Periodontol. 2006;77:248–56.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Quirynen M, Avontroodt P, Peeters W, Pauwels M, Coucke W, van Steenberghe D. Effect of different chlorhexidine formulations in mouthrinses on de novo plaque formation. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:1127–36.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Smith RG, Moran J, Addy M, Doherty F, Newcombe RG. Comparative staining in vitro and the plaque inhibitory properities in vivo of 0.12% and 0.20% chlorhexidine mouthrinses. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22:613–7.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Van Strydonck DA, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden GA. Plaque inhibition of two commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:305–9.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Dolles OK, Bonesvoll P, Camst ON, Gjermo P. Determination of fluoride and chlorhexidine from chlorhexidine/fluoride-containing dentifrices. Eur J Oral Sci. 1979;87:115–22.CrossRef
41.
Preus HR, Dahlen G, Gjermo P, Baelum V. Microbiological observations following four treatment strategies among periodontitis patients maintaining a high standard of oral hygiene. A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol. 2015;86:856–65.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Vatne JF, Gjermo P, Sandvik L, Preus HR. Patients’ perception of own efforts versus clinically observed outcomes of non-surgical periodontal therapy in a Norwegian population. An observational study BMC Oral Health J. 2015;15:61. doi:10.​1186/​s12903-015-0037-3.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Maliha Haydari
Ayse Gul Bardakci
Odd Carsten Koldsland
Anne Merete Aass
Leiv Sandvik
Hans R. Preus
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0400-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Oral Health 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Prevalence of developmental dental hard-tissue anomalies and association with caries and oral hygiene status of children in Southwestern, Nigeria

Research article

Use of artificial primary teeth for endodontic laboratory research: experiments related to canal length determination

Research article

Temporal relationship between dysthymia and temporomandibular disorder: a population-based matched case-control study in Taiwan

Research article

Effects of an educational intervention on oral hygiene and self-care among people with mental illness in Japan: a longitudinal study

Research article

Prevalence of dental caries and associated factors among 12 years old students in Eritrea

Research article

Bone conditioned media (BCM) improves osteoblast adhesion and differentiation on collagen barrier membranes