Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Newcombe

Publications and source records attributed to R Newcombe.

77 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of an herbal toothpaste with a fluoride toothpaste on plaque and gingivitis.

An herbal/bicarbonate toothpaste has received some attention from the public and profession following a number of studies which have reported beneficial effects of the paste on both plaque and gingivitis. The present study, one of several ongoing clinical trials, evaluated the toothpaste in mouthrinse form using a 19-day, no oral hygiene, triple-crossover design in which it was compared with a commercial fluoride toothpaste rinse and the antiplaque mouthrinse chlorhexidine. Over the three periods of the study an increase in plaque and gingivitis was seen for all three products. However, while significant reductions in both parameters were seen with chlorhexidine compared to the toothpastes, there were no significant differences between the herbal and fluoride toothpaste. From these findings it can be concluded that in the long term, the herbal/bicarbonate toothpaste may not exert significant therapeutic effects on plaque and gingivitis beyond that of a conventional commercial paste. Nevertheless, where there is a demand for a natural product, the herbal/bicarbonate paste may be a worthwhile alternative.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

A comparison of 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses on the development of plaque and gingivitis.

A number of commercially prepared chlorhexidine mouthrinses which are now available are formulated at concentrations lower than the more usual 0.2%. This study compared 0.12% and 0.1% chlorhexidine mouthrinses for effects on plaque regrowth and gingivitis, using a two 19-day period single-operator blind-crossover study design on 14 healthy human volunteers. The 0.12% rinse was a commercial product previously shown as effective as a 0.2% rinse. The 0.1% rinse was a reformulated version of a 0.1% preparation commercially available at the time of this study. Plaque reformation was recorded on days 12 and 19 by score and area. Gingivitis was recorded at day 1, 12 and 19 by measuring gingival crevicular fluid, gingival index and bleeding on probing. The mouthrinses were used twice a day and as recommended by the manufacturer. Mean scores for plaque and gingivitis were mostly lower with the 0.12% rinse but only reached significance for plaque score on days 12 and 19 and for plaque area on day 19. Reformulation of the 0.1% would appear to have markedly improved the antiplaque properties to levels similar to a known effective commercially available 0.12% rinse.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of a phenolic and a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash on the development of plaque and gingivitis.

Chlorhexidine and phenolic mouthrinses have attracted considerable interest as adjuncts to oral hygiene. The aim of this study was to compare two well known proprietary mouthrinse products for their effects on plaque regrowth, the development of gingivitis and the formation of toothstaining. The study was a single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, triple cross-over experimental, gingivitis design. A group of 15 volunteers with a very high standard of oral hygiene and gingival health used each rinse for 19 days in the absence of normal toothcleaning. Each period was separated by a 21 day washout. Plaque scores were significantly different between the rinses, being lowest with chlorhexidine and highest with saline. The plaque area increased 3-fold with the phenolic rinse and 6-fold with the saline rinse compared to the chlorhexidine rinse. Similarly, gingivitis increments were lowest with chlorhexidine and highest with saline but differences between rinses did not reach significance. Staining was significantly different between rinses, primarily due to minimal staining associated with the saline rinse. Staining occurred with both the chlorhexidine and phenolic mouthrinses. It is concluded that the 0.2% chlorhexidine rinse offers greater oral hygiene benefits than the phenolic rinse. The question of indications and durations of use of mouthwash products should be addressed.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Comparison of two commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses: II. Effects on plaque reformation, gingivitis, and tooth staining.

Several chlorhexidine mouthwashes are now produced commercially but which differ in concentration and regimen of use. This study compared a 0.1% formulation with a 0.2% formulation for effects on plaque reformation, development of gingivitis, and tooth staining. The investigation was a single blind cross-over design employing 14 volunteers with a high standard of oral hygiene and gingival health. The rinses were used twice a day during two 19 day periods using the regiments recommended by each manufacturer and as a replacement for mechanical oral hygiene practices. A baseline zero plaque score was obtained at the beginning of each period with a 16-day washout allowed between the two periods. Parameters of gingival inflammation were scored at baseline and then, together with plaque and tooth stain scores, at 12 and 19 days. All indices of gingival inflammation and plaque were significantly increased at days 12 and 19 with the 0.1% mouthwash formulation. Little evidence of tooth staining was noted with the 0.1% formulation. The 0.2% mouthwash produced the characteristic staining noted with most chlorhexidine preparations. Based on the findings of this study and a previous laboratory investigation, it is concluded that the reduced antiplaque activity of the 0.1% formulation resulted from inactivation of chlorhexidine within the product rather than from the reduced dose of chlorhexidine used.

Adult↗