The rationale for the daily use
of an antimicrobial mouthrinse
Michael L. Barnett, DDS
he concept of mouth-
T rinsing as an oral
hygiene measure dates
back thousands of years,
with the first reference to
it as a formal practice being attrib-
uted to Chinese medicine in the
year 2700 B.C.1 A variety of ingredi-
ents and combinations have been
used for this purpose by various cul-
tures in the past, including mix-
tures of betel leaves, camphor, and
cardamom or other herbs2(p78); a mix-
ture of salt, alum and vinegar3; and
anise, dill and myrrh in white
wine.2(p78)
However, it is only relatively
recently that the use of therapeutic
antimicrobial mouthrinses has been
based on a well-documented scien-
tific and clinical rationale. This
began in the 1960s with the clear
demonstration of the relationship
between plaque accumulation and
the development of gingivitis.4 It is
interesting to note that a few years
later, a prominent periodontist
wrote that “for the immediate
future, plaque control must rest
with mechanical means” because of
a lack of long-term studies to con-
firm the effectiveness and safety of
antimicrobial mouthrinses.5 The
conduct of such long-term studies
was facilitated by the development
of guidelines by the American
Dental Association (ADA) Council
16S JADA, Vol. 137 http://jada.ada.org November 2006
Copyright ©2006 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Background. This article reviews the rationale
✷
J
A D
A
®
✷
N
CON
IO
for incorporating effective antimicrobial mouthrinses
T
T
A
N
I
into a daily oral hygiene regimen along with mechan- U
IN U
C
G ED
ical plaque control methods. A 2
RT
Types of Studies Reviewed. The author ICLE
reviewed studies demonstrating the essential etiologic role of a pathogenic
dental plaque biofilm in the development of gingivitis, as well as studies
indicating that most people fail to maintain a level of mechanical plaque
control sufficient to prevent disease. In addition, he did a brief review of
studies of oral microbial ecology that identified the oral mucosal tissues as
a reservoir of bacteria that colonize tooth surfaces, and he summarized
six-month clinical studies of marketed antimicrobial mouthrinse ingredi-
ents and products.
Conclusions. There is a twofold rationale for daily use of antimicrobial
mouthrinses: first, given the inadequacy of mechanical plaque control by
the majority of people, as a component added to oral hygiene regimens for
the control and prevention of periodontal diseases; second, as a method of
delivering antimicrobial agents to mucosal sites throughout the mouth that
harbor pathogenic bacteria capable of recolonizing supragingival and
subgingival tooth surfaces, thereby providing a complementary mechanism
of plaque control. The efficacy of several mouthrinse ingredients and
products is supported by published six-month clinical trials.
Clinical Implications. The daily use of an effective antiplaque/
antigingivitis antimicrobial mouthrinse is well-supported by
a scientific rationale and can be a valuable component of oral hygiene
regimens.
Key Words. Plaque control; antimicrobial mouthrinse; gingivitis;
periodontitis; oral bacterial reservoirs.
JADA 2006;137(11 supplement):16S-21S.
Dr. Barnett is a clinical professor, Department of Periodontics/Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine,
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Address reprint requests to Dr. Barnett at 112
Hidden Ridge Common, Williamsville, N.Y. 14221-5785, e-mail “mlbgums@aol.com”.
on Dental Therapeutics (now the Council on Sci- searchers instructed 12 subjects with essentially
entific Affairs)6,7 for the design of clinical trials to healthy gingivae and low levels of plaque to cease
evaluate antimicrobial antiplaque/antigingivitis all oral hygiene procedures and then monitored
products. These guidelines, developed for the their condition for up to 21 days. During this
ADA’s Seal of Acceptance Program, also have period, the subjects received periodic plaque and
been adopted by a U.S. Food and Drug Adminis- gingivitis assessments, and plaque samples were
tration (FDA) advisory panel charged with evalu- obtained for microbiological analysis. After cessa-
ating antiplaque/antigingivitis ingredients con- tion of oral hygiene, all the subjects experienced a
tained in over-the-counter products.8,9 marked and rapid increase in the quantity and
In this article, I will consider the rationale for complexity of the plaque bacterial flora that was
incorporating effective antimicrobial mouthrinses followed by the development of gingivitis. Once
into a daily oral hygiene regimen aimed at con- gingivitis developed, the subjects were given
trolling the plaque biofilm. I will address two detailed instruction in mechanical oral hygiene
aspects of the rationale: methods that they then employed twice daily. The
dthe essential role of adequate plaque control reinstitution of oral hygiene resulted in a rapid
in the prevention and control of periodontal decrease in plaque scores and the subsequent res-
diseases; olution of gingival inflammation within a week’s
drecent findings in oral microbial ecology sug- time. This study clearly demonstrated the tem-
gesting that antimicrobial activity at mucosal poral relationship between the accumulation of
sites throughout the mouth can have a significant plaque and the development of gingivitis, thereby
impact on the supragingival and emphasizing the importance of
subgingival colonization of teeth by plaque control in a preventive reg-
oral bacteria. Even though we imen for periodontal diseases as
In addition, the article includes a know that not all well as for dental caries.
summary of the clinical effective- cases of gingivitis Other investigators have con-
ness of ingredients and products will progress to firmed the correlation between
investigated in published clinical periodontitis, we do plaque levels and gingivitis
trials of at least six months’ dura- severity.10-12 More recent studies
not yet have the
tion conducted in accordance with have enhanced our understanding
the ADA guidelines. means by which to of the effect of a biofilm in
identify the people enhancing bacterial pathogenicity
THE ESSENTIAL ROLE and resistance to antimicrobial
OF PLAQUE CONTROL
in whom such
IN PREVENTING progression will agents (see the article by Thomas
AND CONTROLLING occur. and Nakaishi13 in this supplement).
PERIODONTAL DISEASES
GINGIVITIS AND
PERIODONTITIS
The variety of mechanical imple-
ments, potions and dental procedures used It is generally understood that periodontitis is
through the centuries attests to the importance preceded by gingivitis, though signs of gingivitis
attributed to oral cleanliness and the recognition may not always be apparent during bursts of dis-
that deposits of food debris and bacteria can in ease activity leading to further attachment loss.14
some way have a detrimental effect on oral For example, the significance of gingivitis as a
health. Nevertheless, the mechanisms by which precursor to periodontitis was demonstrated in
the deposits can result in disease were not really two studies on specific subject populations, a
appreciated until the late 19th century, when Dr. group of Norwegian men followed for 26 years
W.D. Miller proposed a key role for acid-pro- (chronic periodontitis)15 and a group of adoles-
ducing oral bacteria in the etiology of dental cents followed for six years (early-onset periodon-
caries. From this, the concept of preventive den- titis).16 In both studies, sites with more severe
tistry developed.2(p271) gingivitis were shown to have a higher risk of
A comparable role for a pathogenic oral flora in developing periodontal attachment loss. On the
the etiology of gingivitis was demonstrated some- other hand, it is clear that not all cases of gin-
what later in a now-classic study by Löe and col- givitis will proceed to periodontitis.14 From a clin-
leagues.4 In this simple experiment, the re- ical practice point of view, it is important to note

JADA, Vol. 137 http://jada.ada.org November 2006 17S

Copyright ©2006 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
that even though we know that not all cases of
gingivitis will progress to periodontitis, we do not
yet have the means by which to identify the
people in whom such progression will occur. As a
result, the maintenance of good oral hygiene
becomes important not only in preventing or
reducing gingivitis per se and controlling the
associated plaque bacteria, both of which are sig-
nificant oral health objectives, but also as a
measure to prevent the subsequent development
of periodontitis in susceptible people. Indeed, the
effectiveness of rigorous levels of plaque control
in helping manage the onset or progression of
periodontal diseases has been demonstrated in
several clinical trials of up to 46 months’
duration,17-19 as well as in a patient cohort
monitored for 30 years.20
REAL-WORLD LIMITATIONS OF
MECHANICAL PLAQUE CONTROL METHODS
While it theoretically is possible to maintain a
level of oral hygiene sufficient to control gin-
givitis using mechanical methods alone, data
indicate that the vast majority of people are
unable to accomplish this on an ongoing basis.
For example, in a survey conducted in the United
Kingdom, an average of one-third of the teeth in
72 percent of all the dentate adults examined
were found to have visible plaque.21 Especially
interesting was the finding that a subset of par-
ticipants who cleaned their teeth immediately
before the examination still had visible plaque on
close to one-third of their teeth, providing an
indication of the challenge presented by thorough
plaque removal. This has been further docu-
mented by a study of the effectiveness of a pow-
ered toothbrush that revealed plaque reductions
of only 20 and 31 percent after one and three
minutes of brushing, respectively.22 In addition,
surveys conducted in developed countries reveal
the percentage of people who claim to use dental
floss or some other interdental cleaning device
daily to be between 11 and 51 percent,23-27 pro-
viding additional evidence for a lack of adequate
plaque control.
The difficulty in accomplishing effective plaque
removal by most people is reflected in epidemio-
logic studies of gingivitis. The largest study in
the United States, the Third National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey,28 has identified
gingivitis by assessing bleeding at mesiobuccal
and midbuccal sites on all fully erupted teeth in a
randomly selected maxillary and mandibular
18S JADA, Vol. 137 http://jada.ada.org November 2006
Copyright ©2006 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
quadrant. The investigators found a gingivitis
prevalence of 50.3 percent in all people between
the ages of 30 and 90 years, with a mean of 13.5
percent of teeth involved. The authors noted that
because the study assessed 28 tooth sites per sub-
ject at most, it might have significantly underesti-
mated the prevalence of any clinical parameter,
including gingivitis. In addition, it is important to
note that the study design also has the potential
of underestimating gingivitis prevalence.
Mandibular lingual surfaces—sites often difficult
to brush—were not assessed and, moreover, signs
of less severe gingivitis that can occur in the
absence of bleeding (for example, changes in
tissue color and consistency) but that are included
in traditional gingival indexes29 were not
recorded.
In another study of adults 25 to 73 years of age,
the researchers found no subject to be entirely
plaque-free, with 35.7 percent of subjects having
visible plaque on more than 90 percent of tooth
surfaces.30 In addition, they found bleeding on
gentle probing in more than 98 percent of sub-
jects, with an average of 38.5 percent of surfaces
affected. A Swedish study evaluating a random
sample of 600 adults in six age groups from 20 to
70 years in 1973, 1983 and 1993 found that levels
of plaque accumulation and gingivitis actually
increased in 20-year-old subjects between 1983
and 1993.27
Thus, the role of the plaque biofilm in the eti-
ology of gingivitis and the findings of studies indi-
cating that the majority of people fail to maintain
an adequate level of plaque control provide a clear
rationale for incorporating effective antimicrobial
measures, such as use of an antimicrobial
mouthrinse, into daily oral hygiene regimens.
From the perspectives of both individual health
and general public health, the daily use of
antimicrobial measures shown to have significant
antiplaque/antigingivitis activity would be a
meaningful, cost-effective addition to mechanical
oral hygiene methods.28,30-32
ORAL MUCOSAL SITES AS SOURCES OF
BACTERIA COLONIZING TOOTH SURFACES
When assessing the effectiveness of mechanical
oral hygiene procedures, dentists generally
measure percentage plaque reductions per se,
focusing on the tooth surface without considering
the dynamic aspects of plaque formation. Yet we
know, for example, that within a short time after
a thorough dental prophylaxis, bacteria begin to
TABLE

Summary of published six-month plaque/gingivitis mouthrinse

clinical trials.
ACTIVE INGREDIENT MARKETED PLAQUE GINGIVITIS STUDY
PRODUCT REDUCTION REDUCTION
(%)* (%)*

0.12 Percent Peridex (Zila 21.6-60.9 18.2-42.5 Grossman and colleagues,51

Chlorhexidine Pharmaceuticals, Phoenix)† Overholser and colleagues,55
Charles and colleagues57

Fixed Combination Listerine Antiseptic, Cool
of Essential Oils ‡ Mint Listerine, FreshBurst
Listerine, Natural Citrus
Listerine (Pfizer, Morris
Plains, N.J.)†
13.8-56.3 14.0-35.9 Lamster and colleagues,52
Gordon and colleagues,53
DePaola and colleagues,54
Overholser and colleagues,55
Charles and colleagues,56
Charles and colleagues,57
Sharma and colleagues58

Cetylpyridinium
Chloride
0.05 percent Viadent (Colgate-Palmolive, 28.2 24.0 Allen and colleagues59
New York)

0.07 percent Crest Pro-Health Rinse 15.8 15.4 Mankodi and colleagues60
(Procter & Gamble,
Cincinnati)

* Compared with negative control at six months.

† These products have received the American Dental Association Seal of Acceptance.
‡ Thymol 0.064 percent, eucalyptol 0.092 percent, methyl salicylate 0.060 percent, menthol 0.042 percent.

recolonize the tooth surface and initiate the
process of plaque re-formation. We also know that
after thorough root débridement in periodontal
pockets, the subgingival root surfaces eventually
will be repopulated with a potentially pathogenic
flora. Where do the repopulating bacteria come
from, and is there anything that can be done to
diminish the overall intraoral bacterial burden?
The supragingival and subgingival tooth sur-
faces are, in fact, part of a larger ecological
system that includes oral mucosal surfaces and
saliva. In the adult, the oral mucosal tissues are
estimated to compose approximately 80 percent of
the total surface area, with the teeth providing
the other 20 percent.33 These surfaces are a source
of bacteria; in fact, the oral mucosal surfaces in
infants have been shown to be colonized by bac-
teria,34 including gram-negative periodon-
topathogens,35,36 well before the time of tooth
eruption. Bacteria are shed constantly from
mucosal and tooth surfaces into saliva and car-
ried to other areas of the mouth, which they can
colonize in turn. As unstimulated saliva often
contains from 5 × 107 to 1.0 × 108 bacteria per mil-
liliter, the oral surfaces constantly are bathed in
suspended microorganisms.37 Studies comparing
the bacterial composition of supragingival and
subgingival plaque with that of saliva and various
mucosal surfaces have indicated that the oral
mucosae—in particular the dorsum and lateral
borders of the tongue and, to a lesser degree, the
buccal mucosae—serve as reservoirs for bacteria
and can be the source of pathogens that recolo-
nize teeth after a dental prophylaxis or peri-
odontal therapy.33,38-44 To illustrate this, in a study
in which conventional periodontal therapy was
shown to significantly decrease the subgingival
prevalence of three putative pathogens, there was
not a concomitant reduction in the prevalence of
these organisms on oral mucous membranes.40 It
also should be noted that supragingival plaque
has been shown to harbor periodontal pathogens
and thus can serve as a reservoir of these species
for the spread to, or reinfection of, adjacent sub-
gingival sites.45
The finding that the oral mucosae serve as
reservoirs of pathogenic bacteria that can be
transferred to the tooth surface provides a further
rationale for supplementing mechanical plaque
control methods with effective antimicrobial
mouthrinses; such products would deliver antimi-
crobial agents to mucosal sites throughout the
mouth that are unaffected by mechanical plaque
control methods. Studies have demonstrated the
effectiveness of rinsing with an antimicrobial
mouthrinse in significantly reducing both

JADA, Vol. 137 http://jada.ada.org November 2006 19S

Copyright ©2006 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
salivary46-48 and mucosal49,50 levels of bacteria. The
addition of an antimicrobial mouthrinse to daily
oral hygiene regimens would help reduce the total
oral bacterial burden and thereby could comple-
ment a direct action on bacteria contained within
the plaque biofilm itself.
PUBLISHED SIX-MONTH
ANTIPLAQUE/ANTIGINGIVITIS
MOUTHRINSE CLINICAL TRIALS
Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the
effectiveness of certain antimicrobial mouthrinses
in reducing plaque and gingivitis. The table lists
the active ingredients and marketed mouthrinse
products supported by published six-month clin-
ical trials51-60 conducted in accordance with the
ADA guidelines.6,7
Chlorhexidine is the active ingredient in a
prescription product marketed pursuant to FDA
approval via the New Drug Application route;
the fixed combination of essential oils and
cetylpyridinium chloride are in over-the-counter
products and have received a Category I (safe
and effective) recommendation by an FDA advi-
sory panel.8 (Additional discussion of studies con-
ducted to demonstrate product effectiveness has
been published elsewhere.32) The effectiveness of
these antiplaque/antigingivitis agents has been
confirmed in a meta-analysis of published and
unpublished six-month clinical trials.61 Both
Peridex (Zila Pharmaceuticals, Phoenix) and Lis-
terine Antiseptic (Pfizer, Morris Plains, N.J.)
have received the ADA Seal of Acceptance for the
control of supragingival plaque and gingivitis.62,63
SUMMARY
The daily use of an effective antiplaque/
antigingivitis antimicrobial mouthrinse is well-
supported by a scientific rationale and can be a
valuable component of oral hygiene regimens.
Advances in our knowledge of oral microbial
ecology have enhanced our understanding of the
role that antimicrobial mouthrinses can play in
controlling the plaque biofilm and related peri-
odontal diseases. Several ingredients and prod-
ucts have been found to be effective against
plaque and gingivitis, two of which—chlorhexi-
dine (Peridex) and a fixed combination of essential
oils (Listerine Antiseptic)—have received the ADA
Seal of Acceptance for this indication. ■
1. Mandel ID. Chemotherapeutic agents for controlling plaque and
gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1988;15(8):488-98.
20S JADA, Vol. 137 http://jada.ada.org November 2006
Copyright ©2006 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
2. Ring ME. Dentistry: An illustrated history. New York: Harry N.
Abrams; 1992.
3. Fischman SL. A history of oral hygiene products: how far have we
come in 6000 years? Periodontology 2000 1997;15:7-14.
4. Löe H, Theilade E, Jensen SB. Experimental gingivitis in man. J
Periodontol 1965;36:177-87.
5. O’Leary TJ. Oral hygiene agents and procedures. J Periodontol
1970;41(11):625-9.
6. American Dental Association Council on Dental Therapeutics.
Guidelines for acceptance of chemotherapeutic products for the control
of supragingival dental plaque and gingivitis. JADA 1986;112(4):
529-32.
7. Imrey PB, Chilton NW, Pihlstrom BL, et al. Recommended revi-
sions to American Dental Association guidelines for acceptance of
chemotherapeutic products for gingivitis control. Report of the Task
Force on Design and Analysis in Dental and Oral Research to the
Council on Therapeutics of the American Dental Association. J Peri-
odont Res 1999;29(4):299-304.
8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Oral health care drug prod-
ucts for over-the-counter human use; antigingivitis/antiplaque drug
products; establishment of a monograph; proposed rules. Fed Regist
May 29, 2003;68:32232-87.
9. Wu CD, Savitt ED. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of over-
the-counter oral hygiene products for the reduction and control of
plaque and gingivitis. Periodontol 2000 2002;28:91-105.
10. Ash MM, Gitlin BN, Smith WA. Correlation between plaque and
gingivitis. J Periodontol 1964;35:424-9.
11. Breuer MM, Cosgrove RS. The relationship between gingivitis
and plaque levels. J Periodontol 1989;60(4):172-5.
12. Stamm JW. Epidemiology of gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol
1986;13(5):360-70.
13. Thomas JG, Nakaishi LA. Managing the complexity of a dynamic
biofilm. JADA 2006;137(11 supplement):10S-15S.
14. Page RC. Gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13(5):345-59.
15. Schatzle M, Löe H, Burgin W, Anerud A, Boysen H, Lang NP.
Clinical course of chronic periodontitis: Part I: role of gingivitis. J Clin
Periodontol 2003;30(10):887-901.
16. Albandar JM, Kingman A, Brown LJ, Löe H. Gingival inflamma-
tion and subgingival calculus as determinants of disease progression in
early-onset periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25(3):231-7.
17. Brandtzaeg P, Jamison HC. The effect of controlled cleansing of
the teeth on periodontal health and oral hygiene in Norwegian army
recruits. J Periodontol 1964;35:308-12.
18. Suomi JD, Greene JC, Vermillion JR, Doyle J, Chang JJ, Leather-
wood EC. The effect of controlled oral hygiene procedures on the pro-
gression of periodontal disease in adults: results after third and final
year. J Periodontol 1971;42(3):152-60.
19. Lightner LM, O’Leary TJ, Drake RB, Crump PP, Allen MF. Pre-
ventive periodontic treatment procedures: results over 46 months. J
Periodontol 1971;42(9):555-61.
20. Axelsson P, Nystrom B, Lindhe J. The long-term effect of a plaque
control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in
adults: results after 30 years of maintenance. J Clin Periodontol
2004;31(9):749-57.
21. Morris AJ, Steele J, White DA. The oral cleanliness and peri-
odontal health of UK adults in 1998. Br Dent J 2001;191(4):186-92.
22. Williams K, Ferrante A, Dockter K, Haun J, Biesbrock AR, Bar-
tizek RD. One- and 3-minute plaque removal by a battery-powered
versus a manual toothbrush. J Periodontol 2004;75(8):1107-13.
23. Christensen LB, Petersen PE, Krustrup U, Kjoller M. Self-
reported oral hygiene practices among adults in Denmark. Community
Dent Health 2003;20(4):229-35.
24. Segelnick SL. A survey of floss frequency, habit and technique in
a hospital dental clinic & private periodontal practice. N Y State Dent
J 2004;70(5):28-33.
25. American Dental Association. 2003 public opinion survey: Oral
health of the US population. Chicago: American Dental Association;
2004.
26. Bakdash B. Current patterns of oral hygiene product use and
practices. Periodontol 2000 1995;8:11-4.
27. Hugosan A, Norderyd O, Slotte C, Thorstensson H. Oral hygiene
and gingivitis in a Swedish adult population 1973, 1983 and 1993. J
Clin Periodontol 1998;25(10):807-12.
28. Albandar JM, Kingman A. Gingival recession, gingival bleeding,
and dental calculus in adults 30 years of age and older in the United
States, 1988-1994. J Periodontol 1999;70(1):30-43.
29. Löe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy, Part I: preva-
lence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963;21:533-51.
30. Christersson LA, Grossi SG, Dunford RG, Machtei EE, Genco RJ.
Dental plaque and calculus: risk indicators for their formation. J Dent
Res 1992;71(7):1425-30.
31. van der Weijden GA, Hioe KP. A systematic review of the effec-
tiveness of self-performed mechanical plaque removal in adults with
gingivitis using a manual toothbrush. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32(sup-
plement 6):214-28.
32. Barnett ML. The role of therapeutic antimicrobial mouthrinses in
clinical practice: control of supragingival plaque and gingivitis. JADA
2003;134(6):699-704.
33. Mager DL, Ximenez-Fyvie LA, Haffajee AD, Socransky SS. Dis-
tribution of selected bacterial species on intraoral surfaces. J Clin Peri-
odontol 2003;30(7):644-54.
34. Fine DH, Mendieta C, Furgang D, Myers R. Chemotherapeutic
mouthrinses as an adjunct in the initial phases of periodontal treat-
ment. Am J Dent 1989;2:309-16.
35. Kononen E, Asikainen S, Jousimies-Somer H. The early coloniza-
tion of gram-negative anaerobic bacteria in edentulous infants. Oral
Microbiol Immunol 1992;7(1):28-31.
36. Kononen E. Development of oral bacterial flora in young children.
Ann Med 2000;32(2):107-12.
37. Liljemark WF, Bloomquist CG, Reilly BE, et al. Growth dynamics
in a natural biofilm and its impact on oral disease management. Adv
Dent Res 1997;11(1):14-23.
38. van der Velden U, Van Winkelhoff AJ, Abbas F, De Graaff J. The
habitat of periodontopathic micro-organisms. J Clin Periodontol
1986;13(3):243-8.
39. Muller HP, Lange DE, Muller RF. Actinobacillus actinomycetem-
comitans recovery from extracrevicular locations of the mouth. Oral
Microbiol Immunol 1993;8(6):344-8.
40. Danser MM, Timmerman MF, van Winkelhoff AJ, van der
Velden U. The effect of periodontal treatment on periodontal bacteria
on the oral mucous membranes. J Periodontol 1996;67(5):478-85.
41. van Troil-Linden B, Saarela M, Matto J, Alaluusua S, Jousimies-
Somer H, Asikainen S. Source of suspected periodontal pathogens
re-emerging after periodontal treatment. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23(6):
601-7.
42. Eger T, Zoller L, Muller HP, Hoffman S, Lobinsky D. Potential
diagnostic value of sampling oral mucosal surfaces for Actinobacillus
actinomycetemcomitans in young adults. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;
104:112-7.
43. Muller HP, Heinecke A, Fuhrmann A, Eger T, Zoller L. Intraoral
distribution of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans in young adults
with minimal periodontal disease. J Periodontal Res 2001;36(2):114-
23.
44. Tanner AC, Paster BJ, Lu SC, et al. Subgingival and tongue
microbiota during early periodontitis. J Dent Res 2006;85(4):318-23.
45. Ximenez-Fyvie LA, Haffajee AD, Socransky SS. Microbial compo-
sition of supra- and subgingival plaque in subjects with adult periodon-
titis. J Clin Periodontol 2000;27(10):722-32.
46. Dahlen G. Effect of antimicrobial mouthrinses on salivary
microflora in healthy subjects. Scand J Dent Res 1984;92(1):38-42.
47. Jenkins S, Addy M, Wade W, Newcombe RG. The magnitude and
JADA, Vol. 137 http://jada.ada.org
Copyright ©2006 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.
duration of the effects of some mouthrinse products on salivary bacte-
rial counts. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21(6):397-401.
48. DePaola LG, Minah GE, Overholser CD, et al. Effect of an anti-
septic mouthrinse on salivary microbiota. Am J Dent 1996;9(3):93-5.
49. Pitts G, Pianotti R, Feary TW, McGuiness J, Masura T. The in
vivo effects of an antiseptic mouthwash on odor-producing microorgan-
isms. J Dent Res 1981;60(11):1891-6.
50. Fine DH, Furgang D, Sinatra K, Charles C, McGuire A, Kumar
LD. In vivo antimicrobial effectiveness of an essential oil-containing
mouth rinse 12 h after a single use and 14 days’ use. J Clin Periodontol
2005;32(4):335-40.
51. Grossman E, Reiter G, Sturzenberger OP, et al. Six-month study
of the effects of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on gingivitis in adults. J
Perio Res 1986;21(supplement):33-43.
52. Lamster IB, Alfano MC, Seiger MC, Gordon JM. The effect of Lis-
terine Antiseptic on reduction of existing plaque and gingivitis. Clin
Prev Dent 1983;5(6):12-6.
53. Gordon JM, Lamster IB, Sieger MC. Efficacy of Listerine anti-
septic in inhibiting the development of plaque and gingivitis. J Clin
Periodontol 1985;12(8):697-704.
54. DePaola LG, Overholser CD, Meiller TF, Minan GE, Niehaus C.
Chemotherapeutic inhibition of supragingival dental plaque and gin-
givitis development. J Clin Periodontol 1989;16(5):311-5.
55. Overholser CD, Meiller TF, DePaola LG, Minan GE, Niehaus C.
Comparative effects of 2 chemotherapeutic mouthrinses on the develop-
ment of supragingival dental plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol
1990;17(8):575-9.
56. Charles CH, Sharma NC, Galustians HJ, Qaqish J, McGuire JA,
Vincent JW. Comparative efficacy of an antiseptic mouthrinse and an
antiplaque/antigingivitis dentifrice: a six-month clinical trial. JADA
2001;132(5):670-5.
57. Charles CH, Mostler KM, Bartels LL, Mankodi SM. Comparative
antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a chlorhexidine and an
essential oil mouthrinse: 6-month clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol
2004;31(10):878-84.
58. Sharma N, Charles CH, Lynch MC, et al. Adjunctive benefit of an
essential oil–containing mouthrinse in reducing plaque and gingivitis
in patients who brush and floss regularly: a six-month study. JADA
2004;135(4):496-504.
59. Allen DR, Davies R, Bradshaw B, et al. Efficacy of a mouthrinse
containing 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride for the control of plaque and
gingivitis: a 6-month clinical study in adults. Compend Contin Educ
Dent 1998;19(2 supplement):20-6.
60. Mankodi S, Bauroth K, Witt JJ, et al. A 6-month clinical trial to
study the effects of a cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinse on gingivitis
and plaque. Am J Dent 2005;18:9A-14A.
61. Gunsolley J. Meta-analysis of six month studies evaluating anti-
plaque, anti-gingivitis agents. JADA (in press).
62. Council on Dental Therapeutics accepts Peridex. JADA
1988;117(3):516-7.
63. Council on Dental Therapeutics accepts Listerine. JADA
1988;117(3):515-6.
November 2006 21S