Loading…

The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review

Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 829–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01575.x. Objectives: The aim of this systematic revi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical periodontology 2010-09, Vol.37 (9), p.829-839
Main Authors: Berchier, C. E., Slot, D. E., Van der Weijden, G. A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203
container_end_page 839
container_issue 9
container_start_page 829
container_title Journal of clinical periodontology
container_volume 37
creator Berchier, C. E.
Slot, D. E.
Van der Weijden, G. A.
description Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 829–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01575.x. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque and periodontal parameters. Materials and methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomized) clinical trials and cohort studies. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Results: Screening of 409 titles and s identified eight eligible publications. A meta‐analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index showed a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p=0.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley & Hein Plaque Index (1968) was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03–0.17]) (heterogeneity I2=0%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation. No difference in the effect of gingivitis between the two concentrations was found in these studies. No studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. Conclusions: In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_748956559</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>748956559</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc2O0zAUhS0EYsrAKyBvRqxS7DiOYxZIqAwzwDCwGH52lutcKy5JHOyEtm_AY-PQUrZ4Y-v6u-dcnYsQpmRJ03m-WdKSkIxw-m2Zk1QllAu-3N1Di9PHfbQgjLCslEKeoUcxbgihgjH2EJ3lpKQV52SBft01gMFaZ7TZY29xcsgvsGlaHxrYudr1gDs_jU1wfQRsfDfoADXeurFJcGJ9j4dW_5gAa2Ombmr16FJN9zUeIDhf-37ULU5tuoMRQnyBNY77OEKXSIMD_HSwfYweWN1GeHK8z9HnN5d3q-vs5uPV29Wrm8wUMueZrKq6WGthrM0FK2xJUllDbVlRCCiBSrHWnJvSFNToHMiaC1oKoNSaWuaEnaNnB90h-DRzHFXnooG21T34KSpRVJKXnMtEVgfSBB9jAKuG4Dod9ooSNa9BbdSctprTVvMa1J81qF1qfXo0mdYd1KfGv7kn4OII6Gh0a4PujYv_OEYkpUWVuJcHbuta2P_3AOrd6tPl_EwC2UHApbx3JwEdvqtSsMR-vb1SXz7w2_fy9XXy_Q13wrPF</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>748956559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Berchier, C. E. ; Slot, D. E. ; Van der Weijden, G. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Berchier, C. E. ; Slot, D. E. ; Van der Weijden, G. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 829–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01575.x. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque and periodontal parameters. Materials and methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomized) clinical trials and cohort studies. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Results: Screening of 409 titles and s identified eight eligible publications. A meta‐analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index showed a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p=0.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley &amp; Hein Plaque Index (1968) was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03–0.17]) (heterogeneity I2=0%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation. No difference in the effect of gingivitis between the two concentrations was found in these studies. No studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. Conclusions: In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0303-6979</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-051X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20618550</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage ; Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents ; Antiseptics ; Biological and medical sciences ; chlorhexidine ; Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage ; Cohort Studies ; concentration ; Dental Plaque - prevention & control ; Dental Plaque Index ; Dentistry ; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology ; gingivitis ; Gingivitis - prevention & control ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; mouthrinse ; mouthwash ; Mouthwashes - administration & dosage ; Non tumoral diseases ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Periodontal Diseases - prevention & control ; Periodontal Index ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; plaque ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; systematic review]]></subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical periodontology, 2010-09, Vol.37 (9), p.829-839</ispartof><rights>2010 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23091148$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20618550$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Berchier, C. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slot, D. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van der Weijden, G. A.</creatorcontrib><title>The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review</title><title>Journal of clinical periodontology</title><addtitle>J Clin Periodontol</addtitle><description>Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 829–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01575.x. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque and periodontal parameters. Materials and methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomized) clinical trials and cohort studies. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Results: Screening of 409 titles and s identified eight eligible publications. A meta‐analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index showed a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p=0.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley &amp; Hein Plaque Index (1968) was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03–0.17]) (heterogeneity I2=0%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation. No difference in the effect of gingivitis between the two concentrations was found in these studies. No studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. Conclusions: In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.</description><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents</subject><subject>Antiseptics</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>chlorhexidine</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>concentration</subject><subject>Dental Plaque - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Dental Plaque Index</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology</subject><subject>gingivitis</subject><subject>Gingivitis - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>mouthrinse</subject><subject>mouthwash</subject><subject>Mouthwashes - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Non tumoral diseases</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Periodontal Diseases - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Periodontal Index</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>plaque</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>systematic review</subject><issn>0303-6979</issn><issn>1600-051X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkc2O0zAUhS0EYsrAKyBvRqxS7DiOYxZIqAwzwDCwGH52lutcKy5JHOyEtm_AY-PQUrZ4Y-v6u-dcnYsQpmRJ03m-WdKSkIxw-m2Zk1QllAu-3N1Di9PHfbQgjLCslEKeoUcxbgihgjH2EJ3lpKQV52SBft01gMFaZ7TZY29xcsgvsGlaHxrYudr1gDs_jU1wfQRsfDfoADXeurFJcGJ9j4dW_5gAa2Ombmr16FJN9zUeIDhf-37ULU5tuoMRQnyBNY77OEKXSIMD_HSwfYweWN1GeHK8z9HnN5d3q-vs5uPV29Wrm8wUMueZrKq6WGthrM0FK2xJUllDbVlRCCiBSrHWnJvSFNToHMiaC1oKoNSaWuaEnaNnB90h-DRzHFXnooG21T34KSpRVJKXnMtEVgfSBB9jAKuG4Dod9ooSNa9BbdSctprTVvMa1J81qF1qfXo0mdYd1KfGv7kn4OII6Gh0a4PujYv_OEYkpUWVuJcHbuta2P_3AOrd6tPl_EwC2UHApbx3JwEdvqtSsMR-vb1SXz7w2_fy9XXy_Q13wrPF</recordid><startdate>201009</startdate><enddate>201009</enddate><creator>Berchier, C. E.</creator><creator>Slot, D. E.</creator><creator>Van der Weijden, G. A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201009</creationdate><title>The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review</title><author>Berchier, C. E. ; Slot, D. E. ; Van der Weijden, G. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents</topic><topic>Antiseptics</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>chlorhexidine</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>concentration</topic><topic>Dental Plaque - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Dental Plaque Index</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology</topic><topic>gingivitis</topic><topic>Gingivitis - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>mouthrinse</topic><topic>mouthwash</topic><topic>Mouthwashes - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Non tumoral diseases</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Periodontal Diseases - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Periodontal Index</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>plaque</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Berchier, C. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Slot, D. E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van der Weijden, G. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical periodontology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Berchier, C. E.</au><au>Slot, D. E.</au><au>Van der Weijden, G. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical periodontology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Periodontol</addtitle><date>2010-09</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>829</spage><epage>839</epage><pages>829-839</pages><issn>0303-6979</issn><eissn>1600-051X</eissn><abstract>Berchier CE, Slot DE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2010; 37: 829–839. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01575.x. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque and periodontal parameters. Materials and methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomized) clinical trials and cohort studies. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Results: Screening of 409 titles and s identified eight eligible publications. A meta‐analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index showed a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p=0.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley &amp; Hein Plaque Index (1968) was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03–0.17]) (heterogeneity I2=0%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation. No difference in the effect of gingivitis between the two concentrations was found in these studies. No studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. Conclusions: In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>20618550</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0303-6979
ispartof Journal of clinical periodontology, 2010-09, Vol.37 (9), p.829-839
issn 0303-6979
1600-051X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_748956559
source Wiley
subjects Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage
Antibiotics. Antiinfectious agents. Antiparasitic agents
Antiseptics
Biological and medical sciences
chlorhexidine
Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage
Cohort Studies
concentration
Dental Plaque - prevention & control
Dental Plaque Index
Dentistry
Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology
gingivitis
Gingivitis - prevention & control
Humans
Medical sciences
mouthrinse
mouthwash
Mouthwashes - administration & dosage
Non tumoral diseases
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Periodontal Diseases - prevention & control
Periodontal Index
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
plaque
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
systematic review
title The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T13%3A12%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20efficacy%20of%200.12%25%20chlorhexidine%20mouthrinse%20compared%20with%200.2%25%20on%20plaque%20accumulation%20and%20periodontal%20parameters:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20periodontology&rft.au=Berchier,%20C.%20E.&rft.date=2010-09&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=829&rft.epage=839&rft.pages=829-839&rft.issn=0303-6979&rft.eissn=1600-051X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E748956559%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4925-988d4ba7cff2734f60492aedf3447e6e197ba55c6c41ca2e0b57167e11fcd9203%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=748956559&rft_id=info:pmid/20618550&rfr_iscdi=true