The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine versus 0.12% chlorhexidine plus hyaluronic acid mouthwash on healing of submerged single implant insertion areas: a short‐term randomized controlled clinical trial

• Published in: International journal of dental hygiene Vol. 15; no. 1; pp. 65 - 72
• Main Authors: Genovesi, A, Barone, A, Toti, P, Covani, U
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.02.2017
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage; Anti-Infective Agents, Local - therapeutic use; Chlorhexidine; Chlorhexidine - administration & dosage; Chlorhexidine - therapeutic use; Dental care; Dental Implantation - adverse effects; Dental Implantation - methods; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth - adverse effects; Dental Plaque - prevention & control; dental staining; Dentistry; Female; Gingivitis - prevention & control; Health & beauty aids; Humans; hyaluronic acid; Hyaluronic Acid - administration & dosage; Hyaluronic Acid - therapeutic use; Male; Middle Aged; mouthwashes; Mouthwashes - therapeutic use; Oral hygiene; submerged single implant; Transplants & implants; Wound Healing - drug effects; mouthwashes; Chlorhexidine; dental staining; hyaluronic acid; submerged single implant
• ISSN: 1601-5029; 1601-5037
• DOI: 10.1111/idh.12158

Objectives The study was performed to evaluate the incidence of post‐surgical adverse events at submerged implant sites as well as the antiplaque, antigingivitis and antistaining effects in the entire dentition of patients treated with two mouthwashes. Methods The present randomized controlled clinical study considered 40 patients subjected to dental implant treatment. Two 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwashes were compared for 15 days: one with 0.1% hyaluronic acid (CHX⊗HYL group) and one without it (CHX group). Surgical outcome variables, and plaque, gingival, and staining indexes were recorded. Results Significant differences were found between the two rinses regarding the presence of oedema within 2 days after surgery (20% for the CHX⊗HYL group and 78% for the CHX group). No other significant differences were recorded between the two mouthwashes. No intergroup differences in plaque, staining and gingivitis indexes were registered. The intragroup analysis revealed that for the plaque and gingival indexes, the differences between the baseline values (before surgery) and those at 15 days were all found to be significant just for CHX⊗HYL rinse, with final values ranging from 0.18 to 0.23 for the plaque index and from 0.06 to 0.07 for the gingival index. The staining index increased for both mouthwash types with significant results (with final value of 0.19 and 0.31 for CHX⊗HYL and CHX groups, respectively). Conclusions In the sites of patients subjected to dental implant placement, an additional anti‐oedematigenous effect in early healing seemed to be disclosed for 0.12% CHX⊗HYL mouthwash. Regarding antiplaque and antigingivitis activities, HYL seemed to be ineffective.