Amine Fluoride/Stannous Fluoride and Chlorhexidine Mouthwashes as Adjuncts to Single‐Stage Dental Implants: A Comparative Study

• Published in: Journal of periodontology (1970) Vol. 76; no. 3; pp. 334 - 340
• Main Authors: Horwitz, Jacob, Machtei, Eli E., Zuabi, Otman, Peled, Micha
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 737 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, IL 60611‐2690, USA American Academy of Periodontology 01-03-2005
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss - prevention & control; Alveolar bone loss/prevention and control; amines/therapeutic use; Anti-Infective Agents, Local - therapeutic use; chlorhexidine/therapeutic use; clinical trials, controlled; comparison studies; Dental Implants; Dental Plaque - prevention & control; dental plaque/prevention and control; Dentistry; Double-Blind Method; Female; Fluorides, Topical - therapeutic use; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes - therapeutic use; Osseointegration - physiology; Patient Satisfaction; Periodontal Diseases - therapy; Surgical Flaps; Survival Analysis; Tin Fluorides - therapeutic use; Wound Healing
• ISSN: 0022-3492; 1943-3670
• DOI: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.3.334

Background: The growing popularity of non‐submerged dental implants in recent years requires a greater emphasis on microbial plaque control. Chlorhexidine (CHX), the most commonly used mouthwash in implant surgery, is sometimes associated with tooth staining and alteration in taste perception. Amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF2) mouthwash has been shown to have anti‐infective properties; however, it has not been tested as an adjunct anti‐infective means in non‐submerged dental implants. The purpose of this trial was to compare AmF/SnF2 and CHX mouthwashes as adjuncts to single‐stage dental implants.
Methods: Thirty‐three patients aged 34 to 79 (mean 54.30 ± 8.69 SD) requiring dental implants were accepted into the study. Following comprehensive periodontal therapy patients received one to three non‐submerged dental implants (maxilla: 17; mandible: 45; anterior: 3, posterior: 59). After surgery patients were given analgesics and antibiotics as well as 2,400 ml of coded mouthwash bottles previously randomized between the two above mentioned formulations. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline and 3 and 12 months post‐surgery.
Results: Twelve‐month survival rates were 100% and 92.9% for the AmF/SnF2 and CHX groups, respectively. Compliance was slightly higher in the AmF/SnF2 group (84.35% ± 3.39% versus 78.15% ± 4.59% SE) but statistically similar. There was no statistically significant difference between the AmF/SnF2 and CHX groups in staining index at 3 months (1.519 ± 0.22 versus 1.457 ± 0.24 SE) and patient subjective evaluation of the mouthwashes. Radiographic bone loss was 0.79 ± 0.23 and 1 ± 0.13 SE at 3 months and 1.06 ± 0.13 and 1.27 ± 0.25 at 12 months for the CHX and AmF/SnF2 groups, respectively; the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.388 and 0.504, respectively).
Conclusion: Both CHX and AmF/SnF2 mouthwashes can be used post‐surgically after one‐stage implant surgery. J Periodontol 2005;76: 334‐340.