Essential Oil-containing Mouthrinse Research Articles

The effects of various mouth rinses on enamel bond strength of a universal adhesive system

Background/Aim. Although essential oil-containing mouth rinses have some advantages, it is not well-known what effects they have on the bond strength of the universal resin adhesives system to the enamel. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of essential oil-containing mouth rinse on the enamel bond strength of the universal adhesive system. Methods. The ninety-six bovine incisors were used. The teeth were divided into four different groups according to the control group and 3 different mouth rinses: Group I (Control) - distilled water, Group II - Listerine Cool Mint (essential oil mouth rinse), Group III - Kloroben (0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouth rinse) and Group IV - Oxyfresh (0.05% sodium fluoride mouth rinse). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to the application mode of the universal adhesive (etch-and-rinse mode or self-etch mode) (n = 12). Mouth rinses were applied daily for 30 sec to the enamel surfaces for a month and the samples were soaked in distilled water. After the shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed with the universal test machine at a speed of 1 mm/min, the SBS data were statistically analyzed (p = 0.05). Results. Two-way ANOVA showed that enamel bond strength of universal adhesive was not affected by mouth rinse and was significantly affected by the application mode. Conclusion. The use of essence oil-containing mouth rinse and other mouth rinses tested in the study is safe in terms of the quality of enamel bonding of the tested adhesive.

Improving oral health in the Middle East - recommendations from the first Middle East Oral Hygiene Advisory Board meeting

Chronic periodontitis may be a sequela of chronic gingivitis, usually because of accumulation of plaque and calculus. Consistent good dental hygiene can help prevent gingivitis and periodontitis. Mechanical removal of plaque through frequent and efficacious brushing and flossing is the principal means of preventing periodontal diseases and diminishing the risk of caries. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), antimicrobial mouth-washes may provide additional oral health benefits, in addition to brushing and flossing, for preventing and reducing gingivitis and plaque. There is a multitude of mouthwashes available for these purposes. The consensus panel of the Middle East Oral Hygiene Advisory Board has recommended that an antiseptic mouthwash should be used as a daily adjunct to mechanical cleaning for prevention of oral disease. Recommending particular mouthwashes should take into consideration the patient's ability to perform good oral hygiene practices (tooth brushing and dental flossing), the condition of the patient's teeth, gingivae and oral mucosa, and the proven efficacy of the mouthwash along with its potential adverse effects. Of the many mouth rinses available, only a few contain chemical agents that have some ability to penetrate biofilm and to kill plaque biofilm bacteria. Currently, only chlorhexidine mouthrinse and Listerine (an essential oil-containing mouth rinse) products, with the claim of plaque and gingivitis reduction, have been accepted for that purpose by the ADA and have a proven record of safety and efficacy. Essential oil-containing mouthrinses have been clinically proven as effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis. Dental care professionals should spend time discussing biofilm control with their patients, and be an information source for the best oral care products. Therefore, it is essential that dental care professionals should continue to monitor published research and work with their colleagues to make evidence-based decisions. In this way, patients will be directed to dental hygiene aids, including antiseptic mouthwashes that can be most effective for improving their oral health.

The effects of three different mouth rinses in a 4-day supragingival plaque regrowth study.

Objective:This study compares the effects of three different mouth rinses with respect to reducing Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) colony counts on the teeth and tongue surfaces.Materials and Methods:In this study, comparison tests using the alcohol-free 0.1% chlorhexidine mouth rinse, alcohol-containing essential oil mouth rinse, and alcohol-free essential oil-containing mouth rinse were conducted. Patients were instructed to avoid mechanical cleaning with either a toothbrush or toothpick for 4 days. The first samples were collected from teeth surfaces and the dorsum of the tongue after a professional cleaning, and the second samples were collected after a 4-day plaque re-growth period. The supragingival plaque from the buccal surfaces of teeth #11, 14, 31, 34 as well as samples from the dorsum of the tongue, were assessed using the Dentocult® strips.Results:The Listerine® and Ondrohexidine® groups did not show any statistically significant differences between the values of the two samples (P = 0.734, P = 0.307). The MC® group and the control group showed significantly higher results than the first sample values. The effectiveness of the mouth rinses on S. mutans colony counts from the teeth surfaces were higher in the Listerine®, Ondrohexidine®, and Mouthwash Concentrate® groups. The difference between the first and second samples of the S. mutans colony counts from the tongue surface was found to be statistically significant, and S. mutans colony counts were higher than the first sample (P = 0.015).Conclusion:Alcohol and essential oil-containing Listerine® mouth rinse, alcohol-free Ondrohexidine®, alcohol-free essential oil-containing MC® mouth rinse had the same effect on S. mutans counts, higher than the 1% alcohol solution on teeth surface. They had the ability to maintain the S. mutans counts at the same level for 4 days in patients who did not perform any mechanical oral hygiene regimen.

Penetration kinetics of four mouthrinses into Streptococcus mutans biofilms analyzed by direct time-lapse visualization

The aim of this study was to determine whether different antiseptic mouthrinses show different penetration kinetics into Streptococcus mutans biofilms. The biofilms, grown on glass-based dishes, were exposed to one of four mouthrinses containing chlorhexidine digluconate, essential oil, cetylpyridinium chloride, or isopropylmethylphenol. Then, penetration velocities were determined by monitoring fluorescence loss of calcein AM-stained biofilms with time-lapse confocal laser scanning microscopy. Bactericidal activity was assessed with fluorescent bacterial viable cell (Live/Dead) staining and viable cell counts. Bacterial detachment after the mouthrinse exposure was determined by measuring fluorescence reduction of SYTO9-stained biofilms. The essential oil-containing mouthrinse showed significantly faster penetration velocity than the other mouthrinses (ANCOVA and Bonferroni test, p < 0.05). However, even 5 min of exposure left the biofilm structure almost intact. After 30 s (consumer rinsing time) of exposure, the essential oil-containing mouthrinse showed the highest log reduction of viable cells (2.7 log CFU) measured by Live/Dead staining, and the mean reduction of total viable cells was 1.41 log CFU measured by viable cell count. The essential oil-containing mouthrinse showed the best penetration. Within 30 s of exposure, however, no mouthrinses injured all the microorganisms and all mouthrinses left the biofilm structure nearly intact. The mouthrinses tested showed different levels of biofilm penetration. The essential oil rinse was superior to other rinses by all three of the in vitro measurements performed.

Antimicrobial Efficacy of Achillea ligusticaAll. (Asteraceae) Essential Oils against Reference and Isolated Oral Microorganisms

The aim of this study was to verify the effectiveness of Achillea ligustica essential oils against several oral microorganisms in comparison with a commercial essential oil-containing mouthrinse (Listerine(®)) and clove oil (containing 89% eugenol). The inhibition efficacy of A. ligustica essential oils alone and in combination with Listerine(®) was evaluated by the micro-dilution method. The most susceptible microorganisms were Bacillus cereus, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Candida albicans. The efficacy was similar to that of the clove oil. The antiseptic mouthwash Listerine(®) did not exert a strong inhibition on microbial strains tested, whereas its effectiveness increased significantly when essential oil was added. The study provides additional evidence for the in vitro inhibitory activity of A. ligustica essential oils on several pathogens, suggesting their usefulness in mouthrinse formulations as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene regimens. Essential oil-containing mouthrinses can be beneficial, safe components of daily oral health routines, representing an efficient and without side effect alternative to prevent and control oral infections.

Comparative efficacy of two daily use mouthrinses: randomized clinical trial using an experimental gingivitis model

Two antimicrobial agents, a fixed combination of essential oils (EOs) and 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are found in commercially available mouthrinses, Listerine® Antiseptic and Crest® Pro HealthTM, respectively. Both mouthrinses have been shown to control dental plaque and gingivitis in short and longer term studies. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two mouthrinses using a 2-week experimental gingivitis model. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthrinse groups: a fixed combination of EOs, 0.07% CPC, or negative control (C) rinse. Following baseline clinical assessments and a dental prophylaxis, subjects began a two-week period in which they rinsed twice daily with their assigned rinse and abstained from any mechanical oral hygiene procedures or other oral care products. Subjects were reassessed at the end of the two-week period. One hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized and 142 completed this study. After two weeks use, the EOs rinse was superior (p < 0.011) to the CPC rinse in inhibiting the development of gingivitis, plaque, and bleeding, with 9.4% and 6.6% reductions compared to CPC for gingivitis and plaque, respectively. Both rinses were superior to the negative control rinse (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the essential oil-containing mouthrinse has superior antiplaque/antigingivitis effectiveness compared to the 0.07% CPC-containing mouthrinse without mechanical oral hygiene influence.

Comparative antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of three antiseptic mouthrinses: a two week randomized clinical trial

The objective of this randomized, examiner blind, parallel group, controlled clinical trial was to compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (EO) to two mouthrinses containing 0.05% Cetylpyridinium Chloride (CPC), one with alcohol and one alcohol-free, using a two-week experimental gingivitis validated-model with a 5% hydroalcohol rinse serving as the negative control. One hundred and fifty-nine subjects, 56 males and 103 females; ranging in age from 18 to 58 years in good general health were assigned to one of the four treatment groups: EO (n = 40), 0.05% CPC with alcohol (CPCa, n = 39), 0.05% CPC alcohol-free (CPCna, n = 40), and 5% hydroalcohol negative control (n = 40). The Mean Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (PI) and the Mean Modified Gingival Index (MGI) were the primary efficacy endpoints and were evaluated at baseline and at two weeks. Following baseline examinations, subjects received a complete dental prophylaxis and began supervised rinsing with their assigned mouthrinse twice daily for two weeks, as their sole oral hygiene measure; 151 subjects completed the trial. Two weeks after baseline the EO adjusted mean PI and MGI scores were significantly lower than those of both CPC rinses and negative control (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the EO mouthrinse demonstrated significantly greater antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy than both CPC-containing mouthrinses and the negative control.

Effect of an essential oil‐containing antimicrobial mouthrinse on specific plaque bacteria in vivo

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of rinsing with an essential oil-containing mouthrinse on levels of specific supra and subgingival bacteria in subjects with gingivitis. Fifteen subjects meeting entry criteria completed this randomized, controlled, double-blind, crossover study. Subjects were required to have >or=1000 target organisms per millilitre in pooled samples from two subgingival sites. Following sampling of supra and subgingival plaque, subjects began twice-daily rinsing for 14 days with either an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (Cool Mint Listerine Antiseptic) or a negative control. Supra and subgingival plaque was again sampled on day 15, and the procedure repeated after a 1-week washout period with subjects using the alternate rinse. Compared with the negative control, the essential oil mouthrinse produced significant reductions in supragingival plaque levels of Veillonella sp., Capnocytophaga sp., Fusobacterium nucleatum, and total anaerobes ranging from 52.3 to 88.5% (p<0.001 except for Veillonella, p=0.002); respective reductions in subgingival plaque ranged from 54.1 to 69.1% (p<0.001). Rinsing with the essential oil mouthrinse can have an impact on the subgingival plaque flora. This study provides additional evidence indicating that reduction in supragingival plaque can reduce levels of subgingival plaque.

In vivo antimicrobial effectiveness of an essential oil‐containing mouth rinse 12 h after a single use and 14 days' use

Two studies were conducted to determine the antimicrobial effect of rinsing with an essential oil-containing mouth rinse 12 h after a single rinse and 12 h after 2 weeks of twice daily rinsing, during the daytime and overnight. These studies utilized a randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover design. Following baseline sampling of bacteria from supragingival plaque and the dorsum of the tongue, subjects began twice-daily rinsing with either an essential oil mouth rinse containing 0.09% zinc chloride (Tartar Control Listerine Antiseptic) or a negative control rinse. Bacterial sampling was repeated 12 h after the first rinse, and again 12 h after the final rinse 14 days later. The sampling schedule was adjusted according to whether the study was investigating daytime or overnight activity. Samples were plated on Schaedlers medium (total anaerobes), Schaedlers Nalidixic/Vancomycin medium (Gram-negative anaerobes), and OOPS medium (volatile sulphur compound (VSC)-producing organisms). Inter-group log10 transformed colony-forming units/ml counts from samples of supragingival plaque and tongue swabs on each of the three media were compared by analysis of covariance. The mean bacterial counts in subjects using the essential oil mouth rinse were significantly lower (p< or =0.005) than mean counts in subjects using the control rinse in all the comparisons, i.e., tongue and supragingival plaque samples on each of three media at two sampling periods in the daytime and overnight study, respectively. Mean bacterial count percent reductions for plaque samples ranged from 56.3 to 95.3; percent reductions for tongue samples ranged from 61.1 to 96.1. There was a trend to higher reductions after 14 days' rinsing than after the initial rinse. Rinsing with the essential oil mouth rinse can have long-lasting effects in reducing anaerobic bacteria overall as well as Gram-negative anaerobes and VSC-producing bacteria. The significant reductions in numbers of these bacteria produced by the essential oil mouth rinse, both in plaque and on the dorsum of the tongue, can play a key role in explaining the essential oil mouth rinse's effectiveness in reducing supragingival plaque and gingivitis as well as its effectiveness in controlling intrinsic oral malodor over prolonged periods.

The efficacy of an essential oil antiseptic mouthrinse vs. dental floss in controlling interproximal gingivitis: A comparative study

The use of dental floss has long been considered to be effective in controlling interproximal plaque and gingivitis. The authors compared this method with that of use of a mouthrinse. Subjects with mild-to-moderate gingivitis enrolled in a long-term, six-month study. They received a dental prophylaxis and were randomized into one of the three following treatment groups: brushing and rinsing with an essential oil-containing mouthrinse (the BEO group), brushing and flossing (the BF group) and brushing and rinsing with a control rinse (the B group). A total of 326 subjects were evaluated. The BEO and BF had significantly lower (P < .001) mean interproximal Modified Gingival Index, or MGI, scores than did the B group at six months. The BEO group had lower mean interproximal Plaque Index, or PI, scores than the other two groups at both three and six months. The BF group's mean PI score was significantly lower than the B group's mean score at six months only. The magnitude of reductions for the BEO and the BF groups (vs. the B group) in MGI were 11.1 percent and 4.3 percent and for PI were 20.0 percent and 3.4 percent, respectively. In conjunction with professional care (prophylaxis) and toothbrushing over six months, rinsing twice daily with an essential oil-containing mouthrinse was at least as good as flossing daily in reducing interproximal plaque and gingivitis. Clinical Implications. When weighing recommendations for oral hygiene home care, clinicians should consider that an essential oil-containing mouthrinse may be a useful adjunct in patients with gingival inflammation.