We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of Antimicrobial Efficacy of (between) 0.2% Chlorhexidine and Herbal Mouthwash on Salivary Streptococcus mutans : A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.
Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2018 July
Background: The chemomechanical plaque control measures are helpful in controlling dental plaque and thus caries, especially in pediatric age group.
Aim: This study aims to compare effectiveness of herbal mouthrinse containing Terminalia chebula to that of 0.2% chlorhexidine against children's salivary mutans streptococci levels.
Settings and Design: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study design will be framed for conducting this study.
Methods: A total of 45 participants were randomly categorized in Group 1, Group 2, or Group 3 (control group, experimental group, or negative control). Baseline unstimulated saliva was collected. All the participants were instructed regarding the use of mouthrinse for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, again unstimulated saliva was collected. After collection, saliva samples were sent for microbiological analysis.
Statistical Analysis: The mean colony-forming units (CFU/ml) were determined. Paired t -test, ANOVA test, and post hoc test were applied for statistical analysis.
Results: Statistically significant difference in CFU count has been observed in 0.2% chlorhexidine and Oratreat groups at 15 days as compared to baseline ( P < 0.001). At 15 days, reduction in CFU count has seen more in Oratreat group as compared to 0.2% chlorhexidine group, and the difference is statistically significant ( P < 0.001).
Conclusion: 0.2% chlorhexidine and Oratreat mouthwash reduce the salivary Streptococcus mutans count. Oratreat herbal mouthwash has proved to be better as compared to 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash.
Aim: This study aims to compare effectiveness of herbal mouthrinse containing Terminalia chebula to that of 0.2% chlorhexidine against children's salivary mutans streptococci levels.
Settings and Design: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study design will be framed for conducting this study.
Methods: A total of 45 participants were randomly categorized in Group 1, Group 2, or Group 3 (control group, experimental group, or negative control). Baseline unstimulated saliva was collected. All the participants were instructed regarding the use of mouthrinse for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, again unstimulated saliva was collected. After collection, saliva samples were sent for microbiological analysis.
Statistical Analysis: The mean colony-forming units (CFU/ml) were determined. Paired t -test, ANOVA test, and post hoc test were applied for statistical analysis.
Results: Statistically significant difference in CFU count has been observed in 0.2% chlorhexidine and Oratreat groups at 15 days as compared to baseline ( P < 0.001). At 15 days, reduction in CFU count has seen more in Oratreat group as compared to 0.2% chlorhexidine group, and the difference is statistically significant ( P < 0.001).
Conclusion: 0.2% chlorhexidine and Oratreat mouthwash reduce the salivary Streptococcus mutans count. Oratreat herbal mouthwash has proved to be better as compared to 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app