Jorge Serrano

Efficacy of a new mouth rinse formulation based on 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride in the control of plaque and gingivitis: a 6‐month randomized clinical trial

AIM To assess the efficacy of a 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouth rinse in the control of plaque and gingival inflammation during a 6-month period. MATERIAL AND METHODS Adult subjects with moderate gingivitis were selected [≥40% bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP)]. After retrieving microbiological samples and evaluating the clinical parameters (plaque, BOMP and stain indexes), a professional prophylaxis was performed and subjects were randomly assigned to the test (CPC mouth rinse) or to the placebo group. Subjects were re-assessed after 3 and 6 months. RESULTS A total of 67 patients (35 test, 32 placebo) were included in the analysis. At 6 months, intra-group significant plaque reductions were observed in the test group (0.691, p < 0.001), but not in the placebo (0.181, p = 0.653). At 6 months, the mean BOMP values were lower in the test group (p = 0.052). Changes between baseline and 6 months were significantly higher in the test group both for plaque (p = 0.002) and BOMP (p = 0.037) when compared with the placebo. A microbiological impact was observed in the test group, especially for Prevotella intermedia. CONCLUSION The evaluated 0.07% CPC-based mouth rinse, used three times per day adjunctively to mechanical tooth cleaning, prevents plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation, as compared to the placebo, for at least 6 months.

Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents: a systematic review and network meta-analyses of the Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index.

AIM The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of different anti-plaque chemical agents, in 6-month, home-use, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in terms of plaque index (PlI) changes. MATERIAL AND METHODS RCTs assessing PlI were identified, screened, and evaluated for inclusion. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and risk of bias were assessed. Mean differences between baseline-end were calculated to obtain weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. NMA protocols were applied to assess direct and indirect comparisons among products using Turesky PlI. RESULTS Eighty-three papers were included: 49 examined dentifrices, 32 mouthrinses and 2 both. The NMA analysed 51 studies including data from 4242 and 4180 subjects for dentifrices and mouthrinses respectively. For dentifrices, triclosan-copolymer and chlorhexidine showed the greatest effect, with significant differences when compared with stannous fluoride. For mouthrinses, essential oils and chlorhexidine showed the greatest effect, with significant differences when compared with delmopinol, alexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study (including the severe imbalance in the amount of evidence), dentifrices containing triclosan-copolymer or chlorhexidine and mouthrinses containing essential oils or chlorhexidine showed the greatest effect on PlI scores as assessed with NMA.

Evaluation of new chlorhexidine‐ and cetylpyridinium chloride‐based mouthrinse formulations adjunctive to scaling and root planing: pilot study

OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of two newly formulated chlorhexidine (CHX) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthrinses after scaling and root planing (SRP) in terms of clinical, microbiological, patient-based variables and adverse events, with a positive control with the same active components, already marketed and tested. METHODS A pilot, randomized clinical trial, double-blind, parallel design with 1-month follow-up was conducted. Chronic periodontitis patients requiring non-surgical periodontal therapy were enrolled and randomly assigned to: (i) SRP and test-1 (new reformulation: 0.12% CHX and 0.05% CPC); (ii) SRP and test-2 (new formulation: 0.03% CHX and 0.05% CPC); or (iii) SRP and positive control (commercial product: 0.12% CHX and 0.05% CPC). All variables were evaluated at baseline and 1 month after SRP. Quantitative variables were compared by means of anova or Kruskal-Wallis test and qualitative variables by chi-square or McNemar tests. RESULTS Thirty patients (10 per group) were included. After 1 month, there were significant differences among groups in plaque levels (P = 0.016) as test-1 showed less sites with plaque than test-2 (31.15% [standard error-SE 2.21%] versus 49.39% [SE 4.60%), respectively). No significant differences were found for global patient perception of the product or in adverse effects. Test groups showed better results in levels and proportions (P = 0.022) of Capnocytophaga spp. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this pilot study, it can be concluded that the newly formulated 0.12% CHX and 0.05% CPC mouthrinse showed larger plaque level reductions, without showing more adverse effects, when compared to the other two mouthrinses, after SRP.

EP-1196: Surgical interval after neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: impact on response and outcome

was significant decrease in WBC (median 6.2 vs. 4.9 10^3/ul; p-0.03), PLT (235 vs. 184 10^3/ul; p-0.01) before and after radiotherapy. RBC and Hb did not significantly decrease. The maximum Grade 3 early skin toxicity by the end of treatment was present only in two patients. No Grade 4 toxicities were observed. The maximum Grade 2 fatigue, Grade 1 dysphagia, Grade 1 pain with swallowing were recorded. The early skin toxicity resolved in all patients evaluated one month after finishing the treatment. Conclusions: This 6-week course of definitive radiotherapy using SIB technique showed to be feasible and was associated with acceptable early skin toxicity. Long-term follow-up data are needed to assess late toxicity and clinical outcomes.