Randomised-crossover clinical trial on the substantivity of a single application of a gel containing chlorhexidine and o-cymen-5-ol on the oral biofilm and saliva.
Automated computation
Bacterial viability
Chlorhexidine
Confocal laser scanning microscopy
Cymenol
Gel
Oral biofilm
Saliva
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2024
19 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
18
07
2024
accepted:
09
10
2024
medline:
20
10
2024
pubmed:
20
10
2024
entrez:
19
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
No clinical trials have evaluated the antimicrobial activity and substantivity of gel formulations containing chlorhexidine (CHX) and cymenol. To compare the in situ antimicrobial effect and substantivity of a new 0.20% CHX + cymenol gel (test) with the current 0.20% CHX gel formulation (control) on salivary flora and dental plaque biofilm up to seven hours after a single application. A randomised-crossover clinical trial was conducted with 29 orally healthy volunteers participating in the development of Experiments 1 (saliva) and 2 (dental plaque biofilm). All subjects participated in both experiments and were randomly assigned to receive either the test or control gels. Samples were collected at baseline and five minutes and one, three, five, and seven hours after a single application of the products. The specimens were processed using confocal laser scanning microscopy after staining with the LIVE/DEAD In Experiment 1, the mean baseline BV was significantly reduced five minutes after application in the test group (87.00% vs. 26.50%; p < 0.01). This effect was maintained throughout all sampling times and continued up to seven hours (40.40%, p < 0.01). The CHX control followed the same pattern. In Experiment 2, the mean baseline BV was also significantly lower five minutes after applying the test gel for: (1) the total thickness of biofilm (91.00% vs. 5.80%; p < 0.01); (2) the upper layer (91.29% vs. 3.94%; p < 0.01); and (3) the lower layer (86.29% vs. 3.83%; p < 0.01). The reduction of BV from baseline was observed for the full-thickness and by layers at all sampling moments and continued seven hours after application (21.30%, 24.13%, and 22.06%, respectively; p < 0.01). Again, the control group showed similar results. No significant differences between test and control gels were observed in either saliva or dental plaque biofilm at any sampling time. A 0.20% CHX + cymenol gel application demonstrates potent and immediate antimicrobial activity on salivary flora and de novo biofilm. This effect is maintained seven hours after application. Similar effects are obtained with a 0.20% CHX-only gel.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
No clinical trials have evaluated the antimicrobial activity and substantivity of gel formulations containing chlorhexidine (CHX) and cymenol.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To compare the in situ antimicrobial effect and substantivity of a new 0.20% CHX + cymenol gel (test) with the current 0.20% CHX gel formulation (control) on salivary flora and dental plaque biofilm up to seven hours after a single application.
METHODS
METHODS
A randomised-crossover clinical trial was conducted with 29 orally healthy volunteers participating in the development of Experiments 1 (saliva) and 2 (dental plaque biofilm). All subjects participated in both experiments and were randomly assigned to receive either the test or control gels. Samples were collected at baseline and five minutes and one, three, five, and seven hours after a single application of the products. The specimens were processed using confocal laser scanning microscopy after staining with the LIVE/DEAD
RESULTS
RESULTS
In Experiment 1, the mean baseline BV was significantly reduced five minutes after application in the test group (87.00% vs. 26.50%; p < 0.01). This effect was maintained throughout all sampling times and continued up to seven hours (40.40%, p < 0.01). The CHX control followed the same pattern. In Experiment 2, the mean baseline BV was also significantly lower five minutes after applying the test gel for: (1) the total thickness of biofilm (91.00% vs. 5.80%; p < 0.01); (2) the upper layer (91.29% vs. 3.94%; p < 0.01); and (3) the lower layer (86.29% vs. 3.83%; p < 0.01). The reduction of BV from baseline was observed for the full-thickness and by layers at all sampling moments and continued seven hours after application (21.30%, 24.13%, and 22.06%, respectively; p < 0.01). Again, the control group showed similar results. No significant differences between test and control gels were observed in either saliva or dental plaque biofilm at any sampling time.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A 0.20% CHX + cymenol gel application demonstrates potent and immediate antimicrobial activity on salivary flora and de novo biofilm. This effect is maintained seven hours after application. Similar effects are obtained with a 0.20% CHX-only gel.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39427170
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05042-7
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-05042-7
doi:
Substances chimiques
Chlorhexidine
R4KO0DY52L
Gels
0
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1247Subventions
Organisme : Lacer, S. A.
ID : 2021-CE161
Organisme : Lacer, S. A.
ID : 2021-CE161
Organisme : Lacer, S. A.
ID : 2021-CE161
Organisme : Lacer, S. A.
ID : 2021-CE161
Organisme : Lacer, S. A.
ID : 2021-CE161
Organisme : Lacer, S. A.
ID : 2021-CE161
Organisme : Xunta de Galicia - Consellería de Cultura, Educación, Formación Profesional e Universidades and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)
ID : ED431G-2023/04; GRC2021/48
Organisme : Xunta de Galicia - Consellería de Cultura, Educación, Formación Profesional e Universidades and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund)
ID : ED431G-2023/04; GRC2021/48
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Mosaddad SA, Tahmasebi E, Yazdanian A, Rezvani MB, Seifalian A, Yazdanian M, et al. Oral microbial biofilms: an update. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38(11):2005–19.
pubmed: 31372904
doi: 10.1007/s10096-019-03641-9
Sharma N, Bhatia S, Sodhi AS, Batra N. Oral microbiome and health. AIMS Microbiol. 2018;4(1):42–66.
pubmed: 31294203
pmcid: 6605021
doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2018.1.42
Salhi L, De Carvalho B, Reners M. Update on the roles of oral hygiene and plaque control on periodontal disease. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2022;1373:329–39.
pubmed: 35612806
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-96881-6_17
Twetman S. Prevention of dental caries as a non-communicable disease. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018;126(Suppl 1):19–25.
pubmed: 30178558
doi: 10.1111/eos.12528
Slot DE, Wiggelinkhuizen L, Rosema NM, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of manual toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2012;10(3):187–97.
pubmed: 22672101
doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2012.00557.x
Otsuka R, Nomura Y, Okada A, Uematsu H, Nakano M, Hikiji K, et al. Properties of manual toothbrush that influence on plaque removal of interproximal surface in vitro. J Dent Sci. 2020;15(1):14–21.
pubmed: 32256995
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2019.07.005
Barouch K, Al Asaad N, Alhareky M. Clinical relevance of dexterity in oral hygiene. Br Dent J. 2019;226(5):354–7.
pubmed: 30850793
doi: 10.1038/s41415-019-0040-1
Serrano J, Escribano M, Roldán S, Martín C, Herrera D. Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents in managing gingivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42:106.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12331
Valkenburg C, Van der Weijden FA, Slot DE. Plaque control and reduction of gingivitis: the evidence for dentifrices. Periodontol. 2000. 2019; 79(1):221–232.
Walsh T, Worthington HV, Glenny A, Marinho VC, Jeroncic A. Fluoride toothpastes of different concentrations for preventing dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;3(3):CD007868.
pubmed: 30829399
Marinho VCC, Chong LY, Worthington HV, Walsh T. Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7(7):CD002284.
pubmed: 27472005
Thangavelu A, Kaspar SS, Kathirvelu RP, Srinivasan B, Srinivasan S, Sundram R. Chlorhexidine: an elixir for periodontics. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2020;12(Suppl 1):S57–9.
pubmed: 33149431
pmcid: 7595540
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_162_20
Brookes ZLS, Bescos R, Belfield LA, Ali K, Roberts A. Current uses of chlorhexidine for management of oral disease: a narrative review. J Dent. 2020;103:103497.
pubmed: 33075450
pmcid: 7567658
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103497
James P, Worthington HV, Parnell C, Harding M, Lamont T, Cheung A, et al. Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3(3):CD008676.
pubmed: 28362061
Brookes Z, McGrath C, McCullough M. Antimicrobial mouthwashes: an overview of mechanisms-what do we still need to know? Int Dent J. 2023;73(Suppl 2):S64–8.
pubmed: 37867063
pmcid: 10690552
doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.009
Eid Alroudhan I, Gamal M, Ganji KK, Khan AM, Alsharari KN, Alruwaili MK, et al. The effectiveness of mouthwashes with various ingredients in plaque control: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Altern Ther Health Med. 2021;27(5):52–7.
pubmed: 33929973
Ramsey JT, Shropshire BC, Nagy TR, Chambers KD, Li Y, Korach KS. Essential oils and health. Yale J Biol Med. 2020;93(2):291–305.
pubmed: 32607090
pmcid: 7309671
Nazzaro F, Fratianni F, De Martino L, Coppola R, De Feo V. Effect of essential oils on pathogenic bacteria. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2013;6(12):1451–74.
pubmed: 24287491
doi: 10.3390/ph6121451
Dagli N, Dagli R, Mahmoud RS, Baroudi K. Essential oils, their therapeutic properties, and implication in dentistry: a review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5(5):335–40.
pubmed: 26539382
pmcid: 4606594
doi: 10.4103/2231-0762.165933
Quintas V, Prada-López I, Donos N, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Tomás I. In situ neutralisation of the antibacterial effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine on salivary microbiota: quantification of substantivity. Arch Oral Biol. 2015;60(8):1109.
pubmed: 26022118
doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.04.002
Tomás I, Cousido MC, García-Caballero L, Rubido S, Limeres J, Diz P. Substantivity of a single chlorhexidine mouthwash on salivary flora: influence of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. J Dent. 2010;38(7):541.
pubmed: 20380865
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.012
Pai MR, Acharya LD. The effect of two different dental gels and a mouthwash on plaque and gingival scores: a six-week clinical study. Int Dent J. 2004;54(4):219–23.
pubmed: 15335093
doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595X.2004.tb00283.x
Suárez-Rodríguez B, Regueira-Iglesias A, Blanco-Pintos T, Balsa-Castro C, Vila-Blanco N, Carreira MJ, et al. Short-term anti-plaque effect of a cymenol mouthwash analysed using the DenTiUS Deep Plaque software: a randomised clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):560.
pubmed: 37573292
pmcid: 10422750
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03256-9
Mira Otal FJ, Denche Sobrino M, Vivancos Cuadras F, Zaldívar Notario I. Eficacia frente al sangrado gingival de una pasta dental con o-cymen5-ol. Cient Dent. 2020;17(1):41–8.
Mira J, Vivancos F, Porcar M, Pascual J. Estudio de prueba de concepto sobre la eficacia de una pasta dental y un colutorio para hacer frente simultáneamente a gingivitis e hiperestesia dental. RCOE. 2022;27(2):235–42.
Charles CH, Pan PC, Sturdivant L, Vincent JW. In vivo antimicrobial activity of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse on interproximal plaque bacteria. J Clin Dent. 2000;11(4):94–7.
pubmed: 11460278
Pan P, Barnett ML, Coelho J, Brogdon C, Finnegan MB. Determination of the in situ bactericidal activity of an essential oil mouthrinse using a vital stain method. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(4):256–61.
pubmed: 10783839
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027004256.x
Quintas V, Prada-López I, Prados-Frutos JC, Tomás I. In situ antimicrobial activity on oral biofilm: essential oils vs 0.2% chlorhexidine. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(1):97–107.
Baus-Domínguez M, Aguilera F, Vivancos-Cuadras F, Ferra-Domingo L, Torres-Lagares D, Gutiérrez-Pérez J, et al. Mucoadhesive pharmacology: latest clinical technology in antiseptic gels. Gels. 2023;10(1):23.
pubmed: 38247746
pmcid: 10815608
doi: 10.3390/gels10010023
Tawakoli PN, Al-Ahmad A, Hoth-Hannig W, Hannig M, Hannig C. Comparison of different live/dead stainings for detection and quantification of adherent microorganisms in the initial oral biofilm. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(3):841–50.
pubmed: 22821430
doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0792-3
García-Caballero L, Quintas V, Prada-López I, Seoane J, Donos N, Tomás I. Chlorhexidine substantivity on salivary flora and plaque-like biofilm: an in situ model. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e83522.
pubmed: 24386220
pmcid: 3873939
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083522
Quintas V, Prada-López I, Carreira MJ, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Balsa-Castro C, Tomás I. In situ antibacterial activity of essential oils with and without alcohol on oral biofilm: a randomized clinical trial. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2162.
pubmed: 29218030
pmcid: 5703870
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02162
Quintas V, Prada-López I, Donos N, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Tomás I. Antiplaque effect of essential oils and 0.2% chlorhexidine on an in situ model of oral biofilm growth: a randomised clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0117177.
pubmed: 25689859
pmcid: 4331278
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117177
Tomás I, García-Caballero L, López-Alvar E, Suárez-Cunqueiro M, Diz P, Seoane J. In situ chlorhexidine substantivity on saliva and plaque-like biofilm: influence of circadian rhythm. J Periodontol. 2013; 84(11):1662–72.
Tomás I, García-Caballero L, Cousido MC, Limeres J, Alvarez M, Diz P. Evaluation of chlorhexidine substantivity on salivary flora by epifluorescence microscopy. Oral Dis. 2009;15(6):428–33.
pubmed: 19413678
doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2009.01570.x
Cousido MC, Tomás I, García-Caballero L, Limeres J, Alvarez M, Diz P. In vivo substantivity of 0.12% and 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on salivary bacteria. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(4):397–402.
pubmed: 19662444
doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0320-2
Prada-López I, Quintas V, Casares-De-Cal MA, Suárez-Quintanilla JA, Suárez-Quintanilla D, Tomás I. Ex vivo vs in vivo antibacterial activity of two antiseptics on oral biofilm. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:655.
pubmed: 26191050
pmcid: 4488754
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00655
Rodrigues PM, Luís J, Tavaria FK. Image analysis semi-automatic system for colony-forming-unit counting. Bioeng (Basel). 2022;9(7):271.
Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676–82.
pubmed: 22743772
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019
Grishagin IV. Automatic cell counting with ImageJ. Anal Biochem. 2015;473:63–5.
pubmed: 25542972
doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2014.12.007
Stirling DR, Carpenter AE, Cimini BA. CellProfiler analyst 3.0: accessible data exploration and machine learning for image analysis. Bioinformatics. 2021;37(21):3992–4.
pubmed: 34478488
pmcid: 10186093
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab634
Vila-Blanco N, Tomás I, Balsa-Castro C, Carreira MJ. DenTiUS Biofilm software. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: CiTIUS, USC; 2017. https://gitlab.citius.gal/DenTiUS/DentiusBiofilm
Aguilera F, Viñas M, Sierra JM, Vinuesa T, Fernandez de Henestrosa R, Furmanczyk A. Substantivity of mouth-rinse formulations containing cetylpyridinium chloride and o-cymen-5-ol: a randomized-crossover trial. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):646.
pubmed: 36575444
pmcid: 9793821
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02688-z
Rajendiran M, Trivedi HM, Chen D, Gajendrareddy P, Chen L. Recent development of active ingredients in mouthwashes and toothpastes for periodontal diseases. Molecules. 2021;26(7):2001.
pubmed: 33916013
pmcid: 8037529
doi: 10.3390/molecules26072001
Papapanou PN, Sanz M, Buduneli N, Dietrich T, Feres M, Fine DH, et al. Periodontitis: consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S173–82.
pubmed: 29926951
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2024. https://www.R-project.org/
Navazesh M, Christensen CM. A comparison of whole mouth resting and stimulated salivary measurement procedures. J Dent Res. 2014;61(10):1158.
doi: 10.1177/00220345820610100901
Thermo Fisher Scientific. LIVE/DEAD™ BacLight™ Bacterial Viability Kits [Internet]. Waltham (MA), United States of America: Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 2024. https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/L7007?SID=srch-srp-L7007
Leica Microsystems. Leica Application Suite X (RRID:SCR_013673). Wetzlar, Germany. 2023. https://www.leica-microsystems.com/products/microscope-software/details/product/leica-las-x-ls/
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91.
pubmed: 17695343
doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
Kensche A, Basche S, Bowen WH, Hannig M, Hannig C. Fluorescence microscopic visualization of non cellular components during initial bioadhesion in situ. Arch Oral Biol. 2013;58(10):1271–81.
pubmed: 24011302
doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.07.006
Xi Q, Hoth-Hannig W, Deng S, Jin X, Fu B, Hannig M. The effect of polyphenol-containing solutions on in situ biofilm formation on enamel and dentin. J Dent. 2020;102:103482.
pubmed: 32980427
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103482
Teves A, Blanco D, Casaretto M, Torres J, Alvarado DE, Coaguila-Llerena H, et al. Multispecies biofilm removal by XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation: a scanning electron microscopy study. Aust Endod J. 2022;48(1):91–7.
pubmed: 34310795
doi: 10.1111/aej.12549
Wood SR, Kirkham J, Marsh PD, Shore RC, Nattress B, Robinson C. Architecture of intact natural human plaque biofilms studied by confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Dent Res. 2000;79(1):21–7.
pubmed: 10690656
doi: 10.1177/00220345000790010201
Elliott AD. Confocal microscopy: principles and modern practices. Curr Protoc Cytom. 2020;92(1):e68.
pubmed: 31876974
pmcid: 6961134
doi: 10.1002/cpcy.68
Wright SJ, Wright DJ. Introduction to confocal microscopy. Methods Cell Biol. 2002;70:1–85.
pubmed: 12512321
doi: 10.1016/S0091-679X(02)70002-2
Escribano M, Figuero E, Martín C, Tobías A, Serrano J, Roldán S, et al. Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents: a systematic review and network meta-analyses of the Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43(12):1059–73.
pubmed: 27531174
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12616
Haydari M, Bardakci AG, Koldsland OC, Aass AM, Sandvik L, Preus HR. 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. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):118.
pubmed: 28821290
pmcid: 5562977
doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0400-7
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(9):829–39.
pubmed: 20618550
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x
Van Dijck P, Sjollema J, Cammue BP, Lagrou K, Berman J, d’Enfert C, et al. Methodologies for in vitro and in vivo evaluation of efficacy of antifungal and antibiofilm agents and surface coatings against fungal biofilms. Microb Cell. 2018;5(7):300–26.
pubmed: 29992128
pmcid: 6035839
doi: 10.15698/mic2018.07.638
Stratton CW. In vitro susceptibility testing versus in vivo effectiveness. Med Clin North Am. 2006;90(6):1077–88.