You are on page 1of 4

162 Pietruska M, et al. · Advances in Medical Sciences · Vol. 51 · 2006 · Suppl.

1 ·

Efficacy of local treatment with chlorhexidine
gluconate drugs on the clinical status
of periodontium in chronic periodontitis patients
Pietruska M1*, Paniczko A1, Waszkiel D2, Pietruski J3, Bernaczyk A4

1
Department of Periodontal and Oral Mucosa Diseases, Medical University of Białystok, Poland
2
Department of Paedodontics, Medical University of Białystok, Poland
3
Dental Practice, Białystok, Poland
4
NZOZ Non-public Centre of Health Care, Medical University of Białystok, Poland

Abstract Introduction

Purpose: Chlorhexidine gluconate is a relatively com- Chronic periodontitis (CP) is a common ailment affecting
monly used chemotherapeutic in the treatment of peri- adult humans. Its main aetiological factor is the bacterial plaque
odontitis (P), exhibiting antimicrobial capabilities against accumulating on the tooth surface due to hygienic neglect. The
Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, and fungi. This effective methods, commonly used to eliminate dental plaque,
compound is a component of various preparations for topi- include scaling with root planing and periodontal surgical pro-
cal use in the form of solutions for mouthrinsing or peri-irri- cedures. Obviously, appropriate plaque control following profes-
gation, gels, varnishes, chips and even chewing gums. The sional mechanical cleaning of root surfaces is indispensable for
aim of the study was the clinical evaluation of periodontium the disease inhibition [1-3]. Such a control involving individual
after treatment with one of the drugs containing chlorhexi- hygienic procedures is possible in many patients. However, there
dine gluconate (Corsodyl) as compared to professional tooth are a number of subjects who, for mental or manual reasons, are
cleaning in patients with chronic periodontitis. incapable to comply with the appropriate hygienic standards to
Materal and methods: Forty subjects enrolled in the study maintain the effects of treatment and to prevent the disease
were divided into four groups, 10 in each group, according recurrence. It is in these patients that the use of chemotherapeu-
to the mode of treatment (Corsodyl rinse, Corsodyl gel, Cor- tics in combination with traditional therapy can help prevent the
sodyl gel + surgical dressing, scaling). recolonization of pathogenic bacteria in periodontal pockets.
Results: The greatest differences between baseline and Chlorhexidine gluconate is a safe, recognized and more
follow-up examinations were observed in the group where frequently used chemotherapeutic in the treatment of peri-
surgical dressing was applied in addition to Corsodyl gel and odontitis (P), exhibiting an action against Gram-negative and
in the group treated with scaling. Gram-positive bacteria, and fungi [4,5]. It is a component
Conclusions: Chlorhexidine gluconate should be more of various preparations for topical use, such as solutions for
frequently used as a drug adjunct to classic periodontal mouthrinsing or perio-irrigation, gels, varnishes, local delivery
therapy, especially in the forms allowing its direct applica- systems (PerioChip), and even chewing gums [2,5-9].
tion to the periodontal pockets. The aim of this study was the clinical assessment of the
periodontium after treatment with a chlorhexidine digluconate
preparation (Corsodyl) in comparison to the procedure of pro-
Key words: chlorhexidine gluconate, chronic periodontitis. fessional tooth cleaning in subjects with chronic periodontitis.

Material and methods
* CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Forty patients with CP, aged 30-65 years (17 women and 23
Department of Periodontal and Oral Mucosa Diseases
Medical University of Białystok men), were enrolled in the study. All the patients underwent
ul. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 7A scaling and root planing. Then, they were divided into four
15-276 Białystok, Poland groups, 10 in each group, depending on the treatment applied.
tel.: +48 085 748 55 27
Group I included patients who rinsed the oral cavity with 0.2%
Received 07.03.2006 Accepted 13.03.2006 solution of chlorhexidine digluconate for one minute (Corsodyl,

75* 1.49** PI 2.001 2. Group II con.01 p=0. the other two – one month and three differences between baseline and the follow-up examinations months later.9±0.76 3.007 p=0.3±0. by 0. The greatest Kline) applied to periodontal pockets at one-week intervals.14 p=0.8±1.58 1. we achieved a significant improvement Assuming that the efficacy of the therapy can be related to in the clinical parameters in all the groups.6±0.27.3±0.3±0.04 p=0. In the current study. Numerical ment of the following parameters: data (mean.0±0. being 1. where In group III. PI was most reduced the disease advancement. Efficacy of local treatment with chlorhexidine gluconate drugs on the clinical status of periodontium in chronic periodontitis patients 163 Table 1. SBI and sisted of patients treated with 1% Corsodyl gel (GlaxoSmith. where the mean difference between the baseline and separately for the pocket depths <5 mm and 5 mm.45** SBI 2.24** Pocket depth 3.6±1. the GI reduction was In all the groups.01 p=0. – SBI (Sulcus Bleeding Index) accrding to Mühlemann and Sonn [11] – GI (Gingival Index) accrding to Löe and Silness [12] Discussion – periodontal pocket depth (in mm) – clinical attachment level (in mm). It should be emphasized that for after the first. and in order to delimit drug leaking from periodontal pockets and its the control group. In groups III and IV.0±0. II for the pockets <5 mm.03 7. major performed before scaling.38** 1. 1-4.03 p=0. Assessment of clinical parameters after application of Corsodyl fluid with regard to periodontal pocket depth Group I (< 5 mm) Group II ( 5 mm) Parameter Examination Examination I II III I II III 1.0±. Clinical examinations were based on the assess. No significant changes were observed after three months in to gradual dissolving.009 p=0.0003 6. the treatment was the same as in group II. In our study. the use of chlorhexidine solu- tion decreases GI by 18%.05 were considered gel by 1.53** 1. Results According to Lang et al. Mouth rinsing with compare changes in the parameters at time intervals in the 0. who showed in this parameter were noted in the Corsodyl group.01 p=0.77 after mouth rinsing.54** 5.2 [13]. but in apart from Corsodyl gel surgical dressing was applied.2 and 1. Other authors have the SPSS 8. Our results well as compared to the baseline.0±0. Pocket depths after treatment were mark- dissolving in the saliva. [13]. difference in these parameters was observed in group III.3±0.0000 1.0000 1. Chlorhexidine used for mouth statistically significant. GI were also significantly reduced after treatment.66 p=0. PI was significantly reduced after 3 months more pronounced. no pharmacological the attachment level in group I after Corsodyl fluid and in group treatment was instituted. The Wilcoxon pairs test was used to shown a similar degree of PI reduction.7±1.4±0. The other two took place one month and three months depth (0.0 PL packet.27 2. respective groups. The differences were had place a week after scaling. The most substantial differences correspond to those reported by Vinholis et al.65.66* 0.36* 1.5±0. respectively).5 after gel . the clinical parameters were assessed in group I.8±1.17 2.69 p=0.0±0.29* 5.7 for those 5 mm. being 44%-57% on average. directly before application of the more pronounced in group III and depended on the pocket drug. the first examination was most of the clinical parameters examined in the study. adhesive surgical dressing Reso-Pack edly reduced in groups I.58 2.8±1. [5]. The preliminary examination in the first three groups significatly decreased on examination 3. this parameter (Meyer Haake) was used to seal the teeth and the surrounding decreased significantly for the pockets 5 mm.73* 6.0±1.001 p=0.49** 2.3±1. In group IV (control).9±0. this parameter changed Clinical examinations were carried out three times by the markedly for the pockets deeper or equal to 5 mm in patients same person with the use of a periodontal probe PCP 11 (LM treated with gel.2% chlorhexidine solution can reduce this parameter by 1.1±0.3±0.4±0.53 2. for pocket depths <5 mm and 1. but not for <5 soft tissues and was kept in the mouth for several hours subject mm.8±0.45** GI 2.04 p=0.003 p=0. rinsing by subjects who do not perform any other hygienic pro- cedures causes a two-fold reduction in plaque accumulation as compared to the placebo-using subjects [14]. referred to the pockets deeper or equal to 5 mm.9 and 2. in the remaining The results were subjected to statistical analysis using groups being 1. examination 3 (after three months) was 1. Differences with p 0.0000 p=0. while scaling by 1.6 a reduction in GI by 0.66 p=0. ** – statistically significant difference between examination I and III GlaxoSmithKline) twice a day for three weeks.3±0.5* 2. 1. the attachment level was Dental).1±1. However.58* 0.8±0.55.3±1.001 * – statistically significant difference between examination I and II. In group II.90* 1.80** Clinical attachment level 3.7±0.88 p=0. respectively. III and IV. In the control group.04 p=0.36 5. standard deviation and p value) have been pre- – PI (Plaque Index) accrding to Silness and Löe [10] sented in Tab.

005 p=0.005 p=0.008 p=0.2±0.17 p=0.58 6.4±1.97 1.01 p=0. As demonstrated in change by 0.8±0.9±0.86** SBI 3.005 p=0. et al.66 5.74* 0.26 7.01 p=0.63* 0.59 p=0. mouth rinsing with chlorhexidine solution allows the marginal gingiva to prevent the gel leaking from the pockets.0000 3.15* 1.67* 1.0001 p=0.9±0.18* 6.72* 3.53 p=0.48 6.0±0.5±0.95 2.05 on average in the fluid and gel groups.50 p=0.4±0.9±0.5±0.0000 * – statistically significant difference between examination I and II.0000 p=0.01 p=0.73** GI 2.164 Pietruska M.5±0.31* 3.60* 1.1±0.52** 1.0000 p=0.52** 1. human and animal studies.97 3.7±0.0000 p=0.5±0.01 p=0.69 p=0.72** PI 2.99 1.9±0.42** Pocket depth 3.0002 3. [17] which .23 2.0000 p=0.2±1.02 p=0.1±0.0000 p=0.4-0.0±0.51 p=0.79* 4.01 p=0.0±2.05* 5.2±1.67** 1.58 p=0.007 p=0.4±1.5±1.87** SBI 3.6±0.2±1.8±1.3±0.97* 0.04 p=0.007 p=0.0±0.85* 1.75 6. pocket depth reduction by approximately 0.47* 0.005 p=0.0±0.1±0. ** – statistically significant difference between examination I and III Table 4.2±0.0002 * – statistically significant difference between examination I and II.53* 1.1 in the scaling group.52 2.80** 5.31** GI 1.9±0.01 p=0.5±1.74** PI 2.0000 3. at the analogous PI levels.40* 1.90 p=0.0000 p=0.0±1.15-17].5±0.3±0.005 p=0.0000 2.8±0.17** 6.1±0.0000 p=0.0000 p=0.88 p=0.0±0.78* 1.9±0.95 and 1. ** – statistically significant difference between examination I and III application and by 0.4±0.2±0.0000 p=0.5±0.9±1.03 p=0.95* 5.0000 3.6±1.15) in the group where Corsodyl compared to the control without pharmacotherapy [5.8±0.0±0.79** 1.72 p=0.81 p=0.5±0.11 3.91 p=0.74** 1.50** GI 2.7±0.2±0. was considerably reduced in chlorhexidine-treated subjects as nounced drop in GI (mean 1.0000 1.04 p=0. Assessment of clinical parameters after application of Corsodyl gel with regard to periodontal pocket depth Group I (<5 mm) Group II ( 5 mm) Parameter Examination Examination I II III I II III 0.81** Pocket depth 3.005 p=0.53 2.0000 1.1±1.1±1.82* 4.4±0.7±0.1±1.76* 0.4±0.04 p=0.005 p=0.0000 4.48** 5.4±0.8±0.0000 1. We found this parameter to This group had also markedly reduced SBI.8±0.83* 6.7±1.9±0.6±0.7±0.40 2.007 p=0.0000 2.8±1. gel application was followed by the use of surgical dressing onto Moreover.0±1.57 5.7±1.3±0.5 mm.58* 1.007 p=0.0000 p=0.6±0.47* 2.92 2.81** Clinical attachment level 3.1±0.4±1.0000 p=0. bleeding and by 1.28** 6.33 6.0±0.99** 1.97* 0.52* 0. ** – statistically significant difference between examination I and III Table 3.1±1.4±0.5±0.4±0.0±1. Table 2.97 p=0.005 p=0. Assessment of clinical parameters in the control group with regard to periodontal pocket dept Group I (<5 mm) Group II ( 5 mm) Parameter Examination Examination I II III I II III 1. We observed the most pro.9±0.0±0.85** 2.56** SBI 2.0000 p=0.57 6.005 p=0.79* 0.6±0.9 after scaling.79* 1. Assessment of clinical parameters after application of Corsodyl gel + surgical dressing with regard to periodontal pocket depth Group I (<5 mm) Group II ( 5 mm) Parameter Examination Examination I II III I II III 1.0015 p=0.99** 1.5±1.007 p=0.0000 * – statistically significant difference between examination I and II.4±1.41* 3.5±0.41** PI 1.6±1.72** Clinical attachment level 4.9±1.30** Clinical attachment level 4.99** 1.8±0.9±0.0±0.0000 3.22 p=0.3±1.006 p=0.01 p=0.0000 p=0.5±0.84* 0.00** Pocket depth 4.9±0.0000 1.1±0.72* 3.

Salvador SLS. drug maintenance in the periodontal pocket [18]. Cappelli D. Finkelman RD. & Löe H. management of periodontal diseases: a comprehensive review. Hase JC. Ramberg P. Goissis G. Etude in vivo de l’efficacité d’un bain de bouche contenant 0. Norkiewicz DS. 1963. Hoffmann T. Soh LL. Palcanis KG. Grenier D. 1999. The effect of chlorhexidine acetate/xylitol chewing gum on the plaque and gingival in the treatment of periodontitis that pharmacology is unneces. Our results would thus confirm the thesis that the efficacy of 12. Furuichi Y. Strahan D. Mayrand D. 1996. Military Med. Wonderlich ST. 1988. 1999. Ebersole JL. 10. ing the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. but also on subjective sensations patients experience during 15. 2000. Oral Dis. Sonn S. especially in the scaling and root planing alone. Greenstein G. The efficacy of an anti-gingivitis chewing gum. 9: 66-74. and 9 by chlorhexidine. forms allowing its direct application to the periodontal pockets. J Clin Periodontol. Simons D. Antczak AAA. Lindhe J. Mouth rinsing with sites with healthy and inflamed gingivae. Large differences in the values of the study parameters 2001. Newcombe R. Dangler LV. Moran J. treatment. between the preliminary and the follow-up examinations could 19. 25: 15-23. this compound should be more frequently used M. Evaluation of a mouthrinse the attachment level. the mode of drug administra. 28. Dudic VB. Löe H. the most pronounced differences cal effects of an antiseptic dental varnish after mechanical periodontal between the baseline and follow-up examinations occurred in the therapy. Act Odontol Scand. Chlorhexidine has many side effects. J Clin Periodontol.4 mm reduction [13]. 19. Effect of chlorhexidine on the adherence properties Periodontol. Gordon JM. Additionally. Gingival sulcus bleeding – a leading of gel with chlorhexidine on periodontium status in patients with symptom in initial gingivitis. Plaque formation and gingivitis after supervised Both pocket depth reduction and attachment level gain may mouthrinsing with 0. J Clin Periodontol. Adjunctive use of subgingival controlled-release chlorhexidine chip reduces probing depth and improves attachment level compared with as a drug adjunct to classic periodontal therapy. Corsodyl gel + surgical dressing group and in the scaling group. The role of local drug delivery in the Diagn Lab Immunol. 0. 1998. Lang NP. M. fillings and oral soft tissues. relation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Brunel G. 2000. pockets depends on both the possibility of achieving biologically Marcantonio RAC. 20: 20-5. of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Jenkins S. Newman HN. 1996. these unpleasant sensations are compensated by beneficial 17. which is another antibacterial mechanism [20. 21: 533-51. Qual- ity-specific taste impairment following the application of chlorhexidine digluconate mouthrinses. in the absence of a structured mechanical regimen of oral hygiene follow- based preparations and have taste disorders [19]. Francetti L. 1971. Fine DH. 16. de Figueiredo LC. Weigel C. sary. Braz Dent J. 4: 105-13. J Periodontol. Flashner Therefore. 8 and 9. Beighton D. Bruhn G. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. Lang NP. Mühlemann HR. Mombelli A. compounds attenuate the adhesion of Porphyromonas gingivalis 1982. Microbiological and clini- Concluding our results. 18. 26: 341-6.10% tion can exert an effect not only on the clinical parameters de digluconate chlorhexidine. 15: 107-13. Testori T. Netuschil L. Oral Dis. Sorsa T. However. Singer RE. which indicates that chlorhexidine and scaling effects of antymicrobial mouthrinses on the novo plaque formation on have similar effects on the attachment level. Kelty E. J Clin Periodontol. The use of 0. P. while application of gel with chlorhexidine containing chlorhexidine and fluoride as an adjunct to oral hygiene. 23: be the result of the lowest baseline values of these parameters in 19-23. . 166: 940-6. 1993. Weinstein RL. Chlorhexidine spray versus chlorhexidine mouthwash in the control of Considerable improvement in the parameters in subjects who did dental plaque after periodontal surgery. Preva- lence and severity. to epithelial cells and inhibit the activity of metaloproteinases 2. the control group. chlorhexidine hexidine irrigation on periodontal inflammation. Offenbacher S.21]. hexidine the pockets diminish their depth by approximately 13. Claffey N. 425-30. 6: 124-31. Magnusson NI. Holt SC. Patients were randomly selected to the respec. 23: 7-11. Knöpfli RU. 2002. Malone KH. Marcantonio Junior E. Inhibition of the References activities of matrix metalloproteinases 2. 1996. 1998. J Clin Periodontol. Polson A. Clin 11. 20.1-3. Helv Odont Acta. 2001. Addy M. Lowenguth RA.5 mm. Bray KS. Silness J. 14. Subgingival utilization of significant concentration of the drug and on the adequately long a 1% chlorhexidine collagen gel for the treatment of periodontal pockets. 69: 989-97. Dentino AR. indices of elderly occupants in residential homes. Killoy WJ.2% delmopinol hydrochloride. 15. mainly the tongue. especially when Effects of 0. firms that in many cases scaling and root planing are so effective 18. the attachment Periodontol. Renvert S. Grenier D. Kidd EAM. use of chemotherapeutic agents in localized periodontal pockets. Act Odontol Scand. Pickrum HM. 69: 507-20. Hammerle CHF. 1998. Undoubtedly. The that both after scaling and application of fluid or gel with chlor. Frutig F. 2001. such as brown discolouration of non-human primates: clinica and microbiological alterations. Catalanotto FA. J Clin 21. 8.2% chlorhexidine depend on the baseline values of the above parameters [16]. J Clin Periodontol. Other reports provide evidence 12. teeth. 23: 140-2. digluconate and placebo for 6 months. 1010-5. Gunsolley JC. Effects of subgingival chlor- effects of chlorhexidine therapy. 1964. Efficacy of local treatment with chlorhexidine gluconate drugs on the clinical status of periodontium in chronic periodontitis patients 165 is consistent with our own data. Brecx According to some authors. The 3. 15: 43-8. Christie P. chlorhexidine solution and scaling caused a 3 mm decrease in 14. J Clin Periodontol. 27: not receive pharmacological treatment is not surprising and con. 6: 437-9. Proskin HM.12% chlorhexidine gluconate on experimental gingivitis in administered as mouthwash. Jeffcoat MK. In our study. 21: 253-9. Grassi M. J Clin Periodontol. J Paradontol Implantol Oral. J Clin resulted in a 3. Breault LG. Brailsford S. Leight RS. J Clin Periodontol. Smith AJ. level was most markedly changed in the surgical dressing group. 22: 121-35. Patients 16. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. A clinical and microbiological study. Gendron R. the treatment of periodontitis by means of gel application to the 13. del Fabbro M. 12: 209-13. II. 1998. Vinholis AHC. Addy M. Volpe AR. Ciancio SG. Gaffar A. Richter S. Cor- tive groups and thus the baseline values were accidental as well. I.2% chlorhexidine complain of bitter and difficult to hide taste of chlorhexidine. Lang NP. the use of surgical dressing influenced the action 11. & Silness J. 17.