Comparison of the clinical and microbiogical effects of 4 mouthrinses

Objectives: To compare the effects of 4 mouthrinses (Natural dentist formulations 1 (ND1) and 2 (ND2), Listerine and Peridex) on clinical and microbial parameters. Methods: 116 chronic periodontitis subjects completed this randomized, double-blind study; ND1=29; ND2=28; Listerine=28; Peridex=31. Clinical measures were taken at 6 sites per tooth at baseline and 3 months. Subgingival plaque samples were taken at the same time-points from the mesial aspect of 14 teeth (one upper and lower quadrant) and analyzed for their content of 18 bacterial species using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. After baseline monitoring, subjects were instructed to rinse for 1 minute twice daily for 3 months with their assigned rinse. Significance of differences between baseline and 3 months for clinical and microbial parameters was determined using ANCOVA. Results: Mean decreases (±SEM) in PlI between baseline and 3 months in ND1, ND2, Listerine, and Peridex groups were respectively: 0.21±0.09; 0.17±0.09; 0.16±0.09; 0.54±0.09; p<0.01. The greatest GI reduction also occurred in the Peridex group, but differences among groups were not significant. % subjects showing improvement in mean PlI and GI in the ND1, ND2, Listerine and Peridex groups were: 72, 71, 57, 87% and 62, 61, 64, 74% respectively. Mean change in % of sites with BOP between baseline and 3 months was marginal in all groups. Mean change in proportions of most test species were modest in all mouthrinse groups, suggesting no major adverse effects on the subgingival microbiota. However, Peridex subjects exhibited significant decreases in proportions of Actinomyces species and ND1 subjects showed significant decreases in the proportions of many streptococci. Conclusions: Peridex provided the greatest overall benefit. ND products showed comparable or better clinical and microbiological outcomes than Listerine and could provide a natural alternative for oral care. Supported by The Natural Dentist.