The effectiveness of dentifrices without and with sodium lauryl sulfate on plaque, gingivitis and gingival abrasion--a randomized clinical trial.

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a dentifrice without sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) to a dentifrice with SLS in young adults aged 18–34 years on gingivitis.Material and methodsOne hundred twenty participants (non-dental students) with a moderate gingival inflammation (bleeding on probing at 40–70 % of test sites) were included in this randomized controlled double blind clinical trial. According to randomization, participants had to brush their teeth either with dentifrice without SLS or with SLS for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP). The secondary outcomes were plaque scores and gingival abrasion scores (GA) as well as a visual analogue scale (VAS) score at exit survey. Baseline and end differences were analysed by univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test, between group differences by independent t test and within groups by paired sample t test.ResultsBOMP improved within groups from on average 0.80 at baseline to 0.60 in the group without SLS and to 0.56 in the group with SLS. No statistical difference for BOMP, plaque and gingival abrasion was found between both groups. VAS scores for taste, freshness and foaming effect were significantly in favour of the SLS-containing dentifrice.ConclusionThe test dentifrice without SLS was as effective as a regular SLS dentifrice on gingival bleeding scores and plaque scores. There was no significant difference in the incidence of gingival abrasion.Clinical relevanceIn patients diagnosed with gingivitis, a dentifrice without SLS seems to be equally effective compared to a dentifrice with SLS and did not demonstrate any significant difference in gingival abrasion. In patient with recurrent aphthous ulcers, the absence of SLS may even be beneficial. However, participants indicate that they appreciate the foaming effect of a dentifrice with SLS more.