比较0.12%和0.1%氯己定漱口水对牙菌斑和牙龈炎的影响。

Clinical preventive dentistry Pub Date : 1991-05-01
M Addy, J Moran, R Newcombe
{"title":"比较0.12%和0.1%氯己定漱口水对牙菌斑和牙龈炎的影响。","authors":"M Addy,&nbsp;J Moran,&nbsp;R Newcombe","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A number of commercially prepared chlorhexidine mouthrinses which are now available are formulated at concentrations lower than the more usual 0.2%. This study compared 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses for effects on plaque regrowth and gingivitis, using a two 19-day period single-operator blind-crossover study design on 14 healthy human volunteers. The 0.12% rinse was a commercial product previously shown as effective as a 0.2% rinse. The 0.1% rinse was a reformulated version of a 0.1% preparation commercially available at the time of this study. Plaque reformation was recorded on days 12 and 19 by score and area. Gingivitis was recorded at day 1, 12 and 19 by measuring gingival crevicular fluid, gingival index and bleeding on probing. The mouthrinses were used twice a day and as recommended by the manufacturer. Mean scores for plaque and gingivitis were mostly lower with the 0.12% rinse but only reached significance for plaque score on days 12 and 19 and for plaque area on day 19. Reformulation of the 0.1% would appear to have markedly improved the antiplaque properties to levels similar to a known effective commercially available 0.12% rinse.</p>","PeriodicalId":75715,"journal":{"name":"Clinical preventive dentistry","volume":"13 3","pages":"26-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on the development of plaque and gingivitis.\",\"authors\":\"M Addy,&nbsp;J Moran,&nbsp;R Newcombe\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A number of commercially prepared chlorhexidine mouthrinses which are now available are formulated at concentrations lower than the more usual 0.2%. This study compared 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses for effects on plaque regrowth and gingivitis, using a two 19-day period single-operator blind-crossover study design on 14 healthy human volunteers. The 0.12% rinse was a commercial product previously shown as effective as a 0.2% rinse. The 0.1% rinse was a reformulated version of a 0.1% preparation commercially available at the time of this study. Plaque reformation was recorded on days 12 and 19 by score and area. Gingivitis was recorded at day 1, 12 and 19 by measuring gingival crevicular fluid, gingival index and bleeding on probing. The mouthrinses were used twice a day and as recommended by the manufacturer. Mean scores for plaque and gingivitis were mostly lower with the 0.12% rinse but only reached significance for plaque score on days 12 and 19 and for plaque area on day 19. Reformulation of the 0.1% would appear to have markedly improved the antiplaque properties to levels similar to a known effective commercially available 0.12% rinse.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical preventive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"13 3\",\"pages\":\"26-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical preventive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前市面上的许多商用氯己定漱口水的配制浓度低于通常的0.2%。本研究比较了0.12%和0.1%氯己定漱口水对牙菌斑再生和牙龈炎的影响,采用为期2天的单操作者盲交叉研究设计,对14名健康志愿者进行了研究。0.12%的冲洗剂是一种商业产品,以前被证明与0.2%的冲洗剂一样有效。0.1%冲洗液是本研究时市售的0.1%制剂的重新配制版本。在第12天和第19天分别记录斑块的形成情况。分别于第1、12、19天通过测量龈沟液、龈指数及探诊出血记录牙龈炎。按照制造商的建议,每天使用两次漱口水。牙菌斑和牙龈炎的平均评分大多低于0.12%的漱口水,但只有在第12天和第19天的牙菌斑评分和第19天的牙菌斑面积达到显著性。0.1%漱口水的重新配制似乎可以显著提高抗菌斑性能,达到与已知有效的市售0.12%漱口水相似的水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on the development of plaque and gingivitis.

A number of commercially prepared chlorhexidine mouthrinses which are now available are formulated at concentrations lower than the more usual 0.2%. This study compared 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses for effects on plaque regrowth and gingivitis, using a two 19-day period single-operator blind-crossover study design on 14 healthy human volunteers. The 0.12% rinse was a commercial product previously shown as effective as a 0.2% rinse. The 0.1% rinse was a reformulated version of a 0.1% preparation commercially available at the time of this study. Plaque reformation was recorded on days 12 and 19 by score and area. Gingivitis was recorded at day 1, 12 and 19 by measuring gingival crevicular fluid, gingival index and bleeding on probing. The mouthrinses were used twice a day and as recommended by the manufacturer. Mean scores for plaque and gingivitis were mostly lower with the 0.12% rinse but only reached significance for plaque score on days 12 and 19 and for plaque area on day 19. Reformulation of the 0.1% would appear to have markedly improved the antiplaque properties to levels similar to a known effective commercially available 0.12% rinse.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信