A 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride/0.05% chlorhexidine mouth rinse during maintenance phase after initial periodontal therapy

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 32; no. 4; pp. 390 - 400
• Main Authors: Quirynen, Marc, Soers, Catherine, Desnyder, Mandy, Dekeyser, Christel, Pauwels, Martine, Van Steenberghe, Daniel
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Munksgaard International Publishers 01-04-2005
• Subjects: Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage; Bacteria, Anaerobic - drug effects; Cetylpyridinium - administration & dosage; Cetylpyridinium - adverse effects; chemical plaque agents; chlorhexidine; Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage; Chlorhexidine - adverse effects; clinical studies; dental plaque; Dental Plaque - prevention & control; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Prophylaxis - methods; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; gingivitis; Humans; Male; microorganisms; Middle Aged; mouth rinses; Mouthwashes - administration & dosage; Periodontal Index; periodontitis; Periodontitis - prevention & control; plaque; prevention; supragingival plaque control; Taste; Tooth Discoloration - chemically induced
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00685.x

Background: Chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth rinse/spray can still be considered the gold standard in the chemical prevention of plaque formation and development of gingivitis. The product unfortunately has some side effects, such as extrinsic tooth staining, poor taste, taste disturbance, sensitivity changes in tongue, pain and irritation because of the alcohol content. These side effects led to the search of new formulations.
Methods: In this double‐blind, randomized, long‐term, parallel study, 48 moderate periodontitis patients rinsed for 6 months (starting immediately after a “one‐stage, full‐mouth” disinfection) with one of the following products: CHX 0.2%+alcohol (Corsodyl®), CHX 0.05%+ cetyl pyridinium chloride (CPC) 0.05% and no alcohol (Perio‐Aid Maintenance®, a new formulation), or the placebo of the latter. After 1, 3 and 6 months a series of clinical and microbiological parameters were recorded for the supra‐ and subgingival area as well as for saliva.
Results: Although there was a significant treatment impact (mechanical debridement) in all groups, both CHX solutions further decreased both plaque and gingivitis indices (p<0.001 and p<0.05, respectively), when compared with placebo. This was also reflected by additional reductions in the number of CFU/ml of aerobic and especially anaerobic species and by a suppression of Streptococcus mutans (versus an overgrowth for the placebo), in all niches. Differences between both CHX solutions were never encountered. The subjective ratings were slightly in favour of the new CHX–CPC formulation when compared with the other CHX–alcohol formulation, especially for taste of the product (p<0.05), but less impressive for the staining of teeth and tongue.
Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated the potential of a new CHX 0.05%+CPC 0.05% non‐alcoholic formulation as an effective antiplaque agent for long‐term use with reduced subjective side effects.