Conflict of interest and source of funding statement The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
1600-051X/asset/jcpe_left.gif?v=1&s=258131c74c5a31169e9eb3fa1833474ca0067207)
1600-051X/asset/jcpe_right.gif?v=1&s=782f4713ee303989721c85ea5c881362aa6d52c6)
Review Article
Effect of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on plaque, gingival inflammation and staining in gingivitis patients: a systematic review
Article first published online: 7 SEP 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01883.x
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Additional Information
How to Cite
Van Strydonck DAC, Slot DE, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden F. Effect of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on plaque, gingival inflammation and staining in gingivitis patients: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39: 1042–1055. doi:10. 1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01883.x.
This study was self-funded by the authors and supported by their institution Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA).
Publication History
- Issue published online: 9 OCT 2012
- Article first published online: 7 SEP 2012
- Accepted manuscript online: 27 MAR 2012 01:54PM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 26 FEB 2012
Funded by
- Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA)
Keywords:
- chlorhexidine;
- gingivitis;
- mouthrinse;
- plaque;
- systematic review
Abstract
Aim
To systematically evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinses on plaque, gingival inflammation and staining in gingivitis patients.
Material & Methods
Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through April 2011. Randomized controlled clinical trials comparing CHX to placebo/control mouthrinses or oral hygiene (OH) ≥4 weeks were included.
Results
Among 1355 titles, 30 publications fulfilled the selection criteria. Meta-analysis (MA) showed significant weighted mean differences (WMD) favouring CHX. This was −0.39 [95% CI: −0.70; −0.08] for the Plaque Index Silness & Löe, −0.67 [95% CI: −0.82; −0.52] for the Plaque-Index Quigley & Hein (PIQH), −0.32 [95% CI: −0.42; −0.23] for the Gingival Index (GI), −0.08 [95% CI: −0.10; −0.05] for the bleeding aspect of the GI, −0.21 [95% CI: −0.37; −0.04] for the Papillary BIeeding Index, −0.16 [95% CI: −0.26; −0.07] for Bleeding on Marginal Probing and 0.91 [95% CI: 0.12;1.70] for the Lobene Stain Index. MA of studies with a low risk of author-estimated bias showed a WMD of −0.68 [95% CI: −0.85; −0.51] for the PIQH and −0.24 [95% CI: −0.29; −0.20] for the GI in favour of CHX. Relative to control, the reduction with CHX for plaque was 33% and for gingivitis 26%. CHX rinsing groups demonstrated significantly more staining.
Conclusions
In gingivitis patients, CHX mouthrinses together with OH versus placebo- or control mouthrinse provide significant reductions in plaque and gingivitis scores, but a significant increase in staining score.