Comparison of clinical effects between active oxygen and 0.12% chlorhexidine – controlled and randomized clinical trial

Vol. 14 – Number 53 – 2022 NOTEBOOK OF CLINICAL DENTISTRY Original article Page 106-111 Comparison of clinical effects between active oxygen and 0.12% chlorhexidine – controlled and randomized clinical trial Nicolas Nicchio Nicolini Calazans¹ Daniela Leal Zandim Barcelos¹ Amanda Libarde Bridi² Tayza Mulinari² Cristiano Hooper Pascoal² Fausto Frizzera² ABSTRACT Chlorhexidine 0.12% is a mouthwash used in Dentistry and is highly effective in the treatment of gingivitis, but it has some side effects. The antiseptic Blue®M which is composed of active oxygen (COA) is a product that has been showing promising results in the treatment of gingivitis under the premise of generating less side effects. The aim of these studies was to compare the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine and Blue®M in teeth and restorations of patients with gingivitis. Two randomized triple-blind controlled studies were performed in a total of forty patients (teeth, n=20; restorations, n=20). Patients with gingivitis were randomized into two groups per study: study on teeth (chlorhexidine, n=10; Blue®M, n=10) and study on restorations (chlorhexidine, n=10; Blue®M, n=10). All patients showed significant improvement in gingival bleeding, and biofilm indexes, showing that both products used are effective. The groups that used chlorhexidine showed greater staining compared to the groups that used COA and, in the patient-related assessments, there was an advantage regarding the taste and bitterness of COA in the study of teeth and restorations, respectively. It was concluded that patients in both groups had a significant reduction in gingivitis, and patients who used COA had less staining of teeth and restorations as well as fewer side effects than those who used 0.12% chlorhexidine. Descriptors: Chlorhexidine, oxygen, gingivitis. ¹ Department of Diagnosis and Surgery – School of Dentistry of Araraquara – UNESP. ² Discipline of Periodontics – FAESA Centro Universitário. DOI: 10.24077/2022;145302447250