Document Detail


Odor reduction potential of a chlorine dioxide mouthrinse.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  10518851     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
The efficacy of a chlorine dioxide-containing mouthrinse in reducing oral malodor was compared to that of a water control in randomized, double-blind crossover study in 12 male and female subjects. Entrance criteria required a score of < or = 1 (slightly unpleasant/stale) on a 7-point ordinal odor pleasantness scale at both screening and baseline. On the test mornings, subjects refrained from oral hygiene and rinsed with 15 mL of either mouthrinse or water (one occasion each), under supervision for a timed 30-second interval. Three trained, previously calibrated sensory judges independently evaluated mouth odor pleasantness and intensity. Odor pleasantness scores (7-point scale) and odor intensity scores (5-point scale) from the three sensory judges were analyzed using an Analysis of Variance. The average score of all the judges was analyzed for each time point. The mean (+/- SD) mouth odor pleasantness in the chlorine dioxide group improved from -1.25 +/- 0.29 at baseline to -0.72 +/- 0.31 at 0.5 hour, -0.81 +/- 0.26 at 1 hour, -0.61 +/- 0.45 at 2 hours, and -0.61 +/- 0.55 at 4 hours post-rinsing (delta = 0.53, 0.44, 0.64, and 0.64, respectively). In the control group, the mean (+/- SD) mouth odor pleasantness improved from -1.06 +/- 0.40 at baseline to -0.94 +/- 0.58 at 0.5 hour, and to -0.97 +/- 0.46 at 1 hour, then deteriorated from -1.06 +/- 0.40 at baseline to -1.11 +/- 0.38 at 2 hours, and -1.08 +/- 0.61 at 4 hours post-rinsing (delta = 0.11, 0.08, -0.06, and -0.03, respectively). The mean (+/- SD) mouth odor intensity in the chlorine dioxide group improved from 1.14 +/- 0.17 at baseline to 0.92 +/- 0.35 at 0.5 hour, 1.06 +/- 0.24 at 1 hour, 0.83 +/- 0.44 at 2 hours, and 0.81 +/- 0.44 at 4 hours post-rinsing (delta = -0.22, -0.08, -0.31, and -0.33, respectively). In the control group, the mean (+/- SD) mouth odor intensity improved from 1.11 +/- 0.26 at baseline to 0.97 +/- 0.44 at 0.5 hour and 1.03 +/- 0.33 at 1 hour, then deteriorated from 1.11 +/- 0.26 at baseline to 1.17 +/- 0.39 at 2 hours, and 1.19 +/- 0.52 at 4 hours post-rinsing (delta = -0.14, -0.08, 0.06, and 0.08, respectively). Analyses of Variance showed that improvement in mouth odor pleasantness compared to baseline for the chlorine dioxide-containing mouthrinse versus the water control was statistically significant (p < 0.05) at all post-rinsing evaluations. For the reduction in mouth odor intensity, there was a statistically significant difference favoring the oral rinse at 2 and 4 hours post-rinsing. Thus, this study demonstrates that a one-time use of a chlorine dioxide-containing mouthrinse significantly improves mouth odor pleasantness and reduces mouth odor intensity for at least 4 hours.
Authors:
J Frascella; R Gilbert; P Fernandez
Publication Detail:
Type:  Clinical Trial; Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Journal of clinical dentistry     Volume:  9     ISSN:  0895-8831     ISO Abbreviation:  J Clin Dent     Publication Date:  1998  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1999-10-19     Completed Date:  1999-10-19     Revised Date:  2004-11-17    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8904411     Medline TA:  J Clin Dent     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  39-42     Citation Subset:  D    
Affiliation:
TKL Research, Inc., Paramus, New Jersey, USA. jfrascella@tklresearch.com
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Aged
Analysis of Variance
Chlorine / therapeutic use*
Cross-Over Studies
Double-Blind Method
Female
Halitosis / drug therapy*
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Mouthwashes / therapeutic use*
Oxides / therapeutic use*
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Mouthwashes; 0/Oxides; 0/RetarDEX oral rinse; 7782-50-5/Chlorine

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Clinical evaluation of cell demodulated targeted electronic anesthesia.
Next Document:  An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses.