91桃色

Antibacterial mouthwashes; Oral infections; Gingivitis; Periodontitis

Introduction

Oral infections, including gingivitis, periodontitis, and dental caries, are among the most prevalent diseases worldwide. These conditions result from the accumulation of harmful bacteria within the oral cavity, leading to inflammation and tissue destruction. If left untreated, oral infections can cause significant discomfort and contribute to systemic health issues such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Oral hygiene practices, including regular brushing, flossing, and the use of mouthwashes, are fundamental in preventing these infections [1]. Antibacterial mouthwashes are often recommended by dental professionals to complement regular oral care routines. These mouthwashes contain active ingredients, such as Chlorhexidine, essential oils, and alcohol, which are believed to reduce bacterial load and prevent plaque formation. While numerous studies have explored the efficacy of mouthwashes, the results have been inconclusive, with some studies showing significant benefits and others suggesting minimal effects on oral health. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of antibacterial mouthwashes-specifically Chlorhexidine and Listerine—in preventing oral infections. The study will focus on their antimicrobial activity, plaque reduction, and ability to improve gingival health [2].

Methodology

Study design

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of antibacterial mouthwashes in preventing oral infections. A total of 100 participants, aged between 18 and 45 years, were recruited from a local dental clinic. Inclusion criteria required participants to be free from systemic diseases, have no history of periodontal disease, and not be using any mouthwash or antibiotic treatments at the time of enrollment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

1. Group 1: Chlorhexidine mouthwash (0.12% solution)
2. Group 2: Listerine mouthwash (essential oil-based)
3. Group 3: Placebo (saline solution)

The participants were instructed to use the assigned mouthwash twice daily, after brushing and flossing, for a period of 6 weeks. Compliance with the mouthwash regimen was monitored through weekly follow-up phone calls.

Outcome measures

The study evaluated the effectiveness of the mouthwashes based on the following parameters:

1. Microbial Load: Saliva samples were collected from participants at baseline and at the end of the 6-week intervention. The bacterial count was determined by culturing the saliva samples on selective agar plates.
2. Plaque Index: Plaque accumulation was measured using the O'Leary plaque control record, which involves scoring the amount of plaque present on the teeth at baseline and after the intervention.
3. Gingival health: Gingival health was assessed using the Gingival Index (GI) developed by Löe and Silness, which scores the severity of gingival inflammation. A lower GI score indicates better gingival health.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all outcome measures. Between-group comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA, with a p-value of less than 0.05 considered statistically significant. Paired t-tests were used to assess changes within groups before and after the intervention.

Results

The results of the study are presented in the following table, which summarizes the effects of the mouthwashes on microbial load, plaque index, and gingival health (Table 1).

Table 1: Effects of Mouthwash on Microbial Load, Plaque Index, and Gingival Health

• Microbial Load: The microbial load in participants using Chlorhexidine and Listerine decreased significantly compared to the placebo group (p < 0.05). Chlorhexidine exhibited the most significant reduction in bacterial count, followed by Listerine.
• Plaque Index: Both the Chlorhexidine and Listerine groups demonstrated significant reductions in plaque accumulation (p < 0.05). The Chlorhexidine group showed the most substantial reduction in plaque, while Listerine also provided significant improvement compared to the placebo.
• Gingival Health: The Gingival Index (GI) improved significantly in both the Chlorhexidine and Listerine groups, with a greater improvement observed in the Chlorhexidine group. The placebo group showed minimal change in gingival health, with no significant improvement.

Discussion

The findings from this study indicate that antibacterial mouthwashes, particularly Chlorhexidine, are effective in reducing microbial load, plaque accumulation, and gingival inflammation, which are all key factors in preventing oral infections. The results support previous research that has highlighted the potent antimicrobial effects of Chlorhexidine, which is known to inhibit the growth of a wide range of oral pathogens [3,4]. In this study, Chlorhexidine not only significantly reduced microbial load but also showed the greatest improvement in both plaque control and gingival health.

Listerine, although less potent than Chlorhexidine in reducing microbial load, still demonstrated significant efficacy in reducing plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. This is consistent with studies that have shown essential oils, such as those found in Listerine, to have antibacterial properties, which help maintain oral health . While Listerine may not be as effective in reducing bacterial load as Chlorhexidine, it is still a useful adjunct to oral hygiene, especially in individuals who seek a more natural alternative to chemical mouthwashes.

The placebo group showed minimal improvements in microbial load, plaque accumulation, and gingival health, underscoring the importance of active ingredients in mouthwash formulations. Without the antimicrobial properties of Chlorhexidine or Listerine, the placebo group showed little to no improvement in preventing oral infections.

One limitation of this study is the relatively short duration of the intervention period (6 weeks). Future studies should consider longer follow-up periods to assess the long-term effects of antibacterial mouthwashes. Additionally, while the study controlled for variables such as brushing and flossing, individual variations in diet, smoking, and oral health behaviors could influence the results [5-10].

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that antibacterial mouthwashes, particularly Chlorhexidine, are highly effective in reducing microbial load, plaque accumulation, and gingival inflammation, thereby preventing oral infections. Chlorhexidine appears to be the most potent mouthwash for maintaining oral health, although Listerine also provides significant benefits, especially for those who prefer a more natural alternative. Given these findings, it is recommended that antibacterial mouthwashes be incorporated into routine oral hygiene practices, particularly for individuals at risk for oral infections. However, they should be used in conjunction with regular brushing and flossing to maximize oral health benefits and minimize the risk of side effects, such as staining and altered taste perception, especially with Chlorhexidine. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects and safety of these mouthwashes.

Acknowledgment

None

Conflict of Interest

None 

1. Selvam V (2003) .Curr Sci 84: 757-765.

,

2. Krisfalusi-Gannon J, Ali W, Dellinger K, Robertson L, Brady TE (2018).Front Mar Sci5:185.

,

3. Arrieta MC, Arevalo A, Stiemsma L, Dimitriu P, Chico ME, et al. (2018). J Allergy Clin Immunol 142: 424-434.

, ,

4. Stiemsma LT, Dimitriu PA, Thorson L, Russell S (2015). Sci Transl Med 7:152-307.

, ,

5. Lorentzen HF, Benfield T, Stisen S, Rahbek C (2020) .Dan Med J67: 20-25.

,

6. Nabeelah Bibi S, Fawzi MM, Gokhan Z, Rajesh J, Nadeem N, et al. (2019) .Mar Drugs 17: 231.

, ,

7. Yuvaraj N, Kanmani P, Satishkumar R, Paari A, Arul V (2012).Pharm Biol 50: 458-467.

, ,

8. Danielsen F, S酶rensen MK, Olwig MF, Burgess ND (2005) .Science 310: 643.

, ,

9. Diogo-Filho A, Maia CP, Diogo DM, Diogo PM, Vasconcelos PM, et al. (2009) . J Infect Public Health 46: 9-14.

, ,

10. Paterson JC, McLachlin J (1954) . Science 98: 96-102.

,