JDR Woodhead Publishing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beiswanger, B. B.
Right arrow Articles by Hennon, D. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Beiswanger, B. B.
Right arrow Articles by Hennon, D. K.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 69, 454-457, Copyright © 1990 by International & American Associations for Dental Research Online Journals


ARTICLES

The clinical effects of a mouthrinse containing 0.1% octenidine

B. B. Beiswanger, M. E. Mallatt, M. S. Mau, R. D. Jackson and D. K. Hennon
Oral Health Research Institute, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis 16202.

The purpose of this three-month clinical trial was to evaluate the effects of a 0.1% octenidine mouthrinse on plaque, gingivitis, extrinsic dental stain, and the oral soft tissues. A total of 451 adult volunteer subjects was initiated into the study and given baseline dental examinations. The subjects were stratified into two balanced groups according to gender, plaque, and gingivitis scores. The subjects then received a dental prophylaxis and were provided with dentifrice, toothbrushes, and either a mouthrinse containing 0.1% octenidine dihydrochloride as the active ingredient or a similar placebo mouthrinse. Subjects were instructed to rinse with their assigned product for 30 s twice each day. Examinations were repeated at six weeks (soft-tissue assessment, gingivitis) and three months (soft tissues, plaque, gingivitis, dental stain). The results showed that the group rinsing with 0.1% octenidine had significantly less plaque (39%), gingivitis (50%), and bleeding sites (60%) than the group using the control product, but had significantly higher stain formation and experienced longer prophylaxis times to remove the stain. The oral soft-tissue examinations revealed no differences in the groups in either the numbers or types of lesions noted.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
IADR Journals Advances in Dental Research ®
Journal of Dental Research ® Critical Reviews (1990-2004)
Copyright © 1990 Institutional Access Guidelines