The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No suppl_3, 22S-26S.
© 2006 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Continuing Education
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wilder, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, S., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Wilder, R.

ARTICLES

JADA Continuing Education

Antimicrobial mouthrinse as part of a comprehensive oral care regimen

Safety and compliance factors



Sol Silverman Jr., MA, DDS and Rebecca Wilder, RDH, MS


   ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Background. Antimicrobial mouthrinses often are used as part of daily oral care to reduce plaque and gingivitis. Although several safety factors have been associated with long-term use of alcohol-containing mouthrinses, numerous studies support the safety of these products in daily care. Patient compliance with daily rinsing is important for successful outcomes.

Types of Studies Reviewed. The authors reviewed studies relating to the safety and efficacy of alcohol-containing mouthrinses, as well as studies indicating that most patients fail to comply with oral health care recommendations. The authors also reviewed a behavioral change theory and applied it to oral health care.

Conclusions. Alcohol-containing antimicrobial mouthrinses are safe and effective as part of a daily oral care regimen to prevent or minimize periodontal disease. However, many patients do not comply with instructions on how to use them.

Clinical Implications. Antimicrobial mouthrinses are safe and effective, and when used in conjunction with brushing and flossing, they are an important method of reducing plaque and gingivitis. To improve compliance, dental health care professionals should adapt oral health care recommendations to fit patients’ specific needs.

Key Words: Antimicrobial mouthrinse; plaque; gingivitis; safety; xerostomia; oral cancer; burning; irritation; compliance; adherence; periodontal disease; biofilm

Many clinical studies, some of which are discussed in this supplement, have proven the effectiveness of antimicrobial mouthrinses in controlling plaque and gingivitis. In conjunction with brushing and flossing, the general population often uses these products as part of a daily oral care regimen to prevent or minimize periodontal disease.

The majority of mouthrinses with antiplaque properties contain pharmaceutical-grade denatured alcohol as a vehicle to deliver antimicrobial ingredients.1 Common alcohol-containing rinses include those composed of essential oils (EOs) and chlorhexidine. Alcohol serves the purposes of solubility, preservability and germicidal activity. Concern has been raised regarding a potential for alcohol-containing rinses to cause adverse effects, including increasing the risk of developing oral cancer, xerostomia and burning or irritation.2 However, numerous published studies have demonstrated the safety of alcohol-containing mouthrinses, and they have failed to find any relationship between these products and the above-mentioned safety concerns.

In this article, we address the potential adverse effects and safety factors that have been associated with alcohol-containing antimicrobial rinses, and we describe the data that support their safety. In addition, we discuss factors that may influence patient compliance with a daily regimen of brushing, flossing and rinsing to control dental plaque biofilm.


   ORAL CANCER
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
People who consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages are at an increased risk of developing oral cancer. As a result, a number of epidemiologic studies have questioned whether alcohol-containing antimicrobial rinses also may be associated with an increased risk of developing disease.

In reviewing the various studies that evaluated the potential for alcohol in antimicrobial mouth-rinses to cause oral cancer, Biological Therapies in Dentistry3 noted the following deficiencies:

– lack of a dose-response based on frequency and/or duration of mouthrinse use;
– inconsistent findings among studies;
– lack of a scientific or biological basis to explain inconsistencies in findings between men and women;
absence of a correction for alcoholic beverage ingestion and tobacco use;
– inclusion of cases of pharyngeal cancer as oral cancer, an improper classification because mouthrinses are used only in the oral cavity.
A recent study comparing an alcohol-containing mouthrinse with a non–alcohol-containing mouthrinse found no clinically meaningful differences between mouthrinses in effects on salivary flow rates or in subjective sensations of dry mouth.

A recent meta-analysis confirmed that the findings in the literature are inconsistent and contradictory and do not fulfill the basic pharmacological requirement of a dose-response to establish a causal relationship between alcohol-containing rinses and oral cancer.4 In addition, Cole and colleagues5 reviewed the results of six relevant studies, and they determined that these studies provided no support for the hypothesis that use of mouthrinses that contain alcohol increases the risk of developing oropharyngeal cancer.

The American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Dental Therapeutics (now the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs) concluded that "based on available data, patients can continue to safely use the therapeutic mouthrinses accepted by the American Dental Association’s Council on Dental Therapeutics and recommended by their dentists."6 Numerous studies have been conducted in accordance with strict ADA guidelines to establish the safety of long-term use of mouthrinses containing EOs and chlorhexidine.714 In addition, most ADA-accepted mouthrinses contain alcohol (Kathy Medic, Acceptance Program, Division of Science, American Dental Association, oral communication, Aug. 21, 2006).

We must caution people who are recovering from alcohol abuse that using an alcohol-containing mouthrinse may put them at risk of experiencing a relapse.


   XEROSTOMIA
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Xerostomia is a subjective perception of dry mouth that results from one or more factors disrupting the quantity or quality of salivary flow. Xerostomia can result in oral sequelae, such as mucosal discomfort, difficulties in mastication and swallowing, caries, insomnia, fungal overgrowth and halitosis, that can have a negative impact on a patient’s quality of life. Some causes of xerostomia include use of antidepressant drugs, use of cardiovascular medications, dehydration, radiation therapy for oral and pharyngeal cancer, and systemic diseases such as diabetes and Sjögren’s syndrome.

Consumer-directed literature has speculated that regular use of alcohol-containing mouthrinses can cause desiccation of the oral mucosal membranes and might increase the subjective sensation of dry mouth. However, a recent study comparing the effect of an alcohol-containing mouthrinse (Listerine Antiseptic, Pfizer, Morris Plains, N.J.) with that of a non–alcohol-containing mouthrinse (ACT Anticavity Fluoride Rinse, Personal Products, division of McNeil-PPC, Skillman, N.J.) on salivary flow and symptoms of dry mouth in healthy adults found no clinically meaningful differences between mouthrinses in effects on salivary flow rates or in subjective sensations of dry mouth.15


   BURNING OR IRRITATION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Some patients have reported oral burning or irritation after using an alcohol-containing mouthrinse. Reducing the alcohol content of the rinse and adding a less intense flavor, such as citrus, have been shown to be successful modifications to reduce the burning or irritation sensation.15 For patients who dislike the taste of an alcohol-containing mouthrinse, diluting the product for the first few days of use and then reaching full strength gradually often results in acceptance.16

We should note that a new non–alcohol-containing chlorhexidine mouthrinse (Chlorhexidine Gluconate Oral Rinse USP, 0.12%, GUM, Sunstar Butler, Chicago) recently was approved for use in the United States. However, chlorhexidine generally is not recommended for long-term use, because it can cause black-brown stains on the teeth, tongue and restorative dental materials that require professional removal.17


   COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
"Compliance" is a common term used in the oral health care literature to describe a patient’s willingness to follow instructions. Wilson18 defined it as "the extent to which a person’s behavior coincides with medical or health advice." Consumers’ compliance is important to achieve a successful outcome of daily use of an antimicrobial mouthrinse in conjunction with brushing and flossing. Obviously, if patient compliance is lacking, a daily antimicrobial rinse regimen will be suboptimal. Research has shown that only 30 to 50 percent of patients are highly compliant with suggested oral hygiene procedures up to 30 days after receiving instructions.19,20

Understanding noncompliance. To motivate patients to follow recommended oral hygiene instructions, including the daily use of an antimicrobial mouthrinse, dentists need to understand the factors leading to noncompliance. The majority of patients do not view chronic periodontal disease as threatening, even though their failure to follow dentists’ advice can result in tooth loss, pain and unnecessary expense.18 Patients often perceive oral health care instructions as difficult to follow and time-consuming. Fear of dental treatment and lack of economic resources also have been identified as major reasons for noncompliance.18

Compliance versus adherence. Shifting the focus from patient compliance to patient adherence may help facilitate behavioral change. "Adherence," a word whose use has increased in the medical literature in recent years, implies patients’ taking an active and autonomous role in their health care.21 When patients understand and value a particular oral health care behavior, they may be more likely to adhere to a home care regimen. The word "compliance," on the other hand, suggests patients’ taking a passive role and acquiescing or yielding to rules they may not be committed to or understand.21

Adhering to oral hygiene instructions. Although increasing patient adherence may seem daunting to dentists, the following methods, adapted from Wilson’s18 recommendations and developed from practice-based dental research, may help improve patients’ adherence to a daily oral health care regimen that includes brushing, flossing and rinsing:

– simplify recommendations and use language that patients can understand;
– accommodate patients’ specific abilities, motivations and lifestyles and modify oral health care instructions accordingly;
– remind patients of appointments;
– inform patients by providing them with a written copy of recommendations;
– provide positive feedback and reinforcement;
– identify potential noncompliers and discuss with them the possible consequences of noncompliance/nonadherence (that is, increased risk of developing plaque and gingivitis) before therapy begins.


   TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Most behavioral change programs are designed for people who are ready to change, yet research has shown that only 20 percent of people are willing to take the action needed to change at any given time.22 Prochaska and colleagues,22,23 who have published widely in the area of behavioral change, developed and validated the Transtheoretical Model as a way to understand how people change intentionally. The model outlines five consecutive, predictable stages through which people move in the process of changing behavior. By identifying the stage patients have reached, either through an oral interview or a questionnaire, oral health care professionals may help promote patient adherence with recommended oral hygiene behavior.24

Prochaska and colleagues22,23 defined the stages of change as follows:

– precontemplation (not intending to change [for example, "I won’t use a mouthrinse"]);
– contemplation (considering a change [for example, "I might use a mouthrinse"]);
– preparation (actively planning a change [for example, "I will use a mouthrinse"]);
– action (actively engaging in a new behavior for the past six months [for example, "I am using a mouthrinse"]);
– maintenance (taking steps to sustain change and resist relapse [for example, "I have incorporated a mouthrinse into my daily oral care regimen"]).

The tableGo illustrates patients’ attitudes and behaviors regarding mouthrinse use that may be exhibited at each of the five stages, as well as oral health care recommendations that dentists can deliver to patients at each stage.22,23


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE Patient’ attitudes and behaviors regarding mouthrinse are and possible oral health care recommendations.

 
Relapse. According to Prochaska and colleagues,22,23 the process of change is spiral rather than linear. This means that patients may lapse in their efforts to follow a daily home care regimen. However, the lapse may be a temporary decline in adherence, rather than a complete reversal to old behaviors. Dentists must put a strategy into place to prevent a relapse at each stage.25

For the patient adhering to a daily regimen of rinsing with an antimicrobial mouthrinse, the oral health care professional should place a note in the patient’s medical record regarding the recommended regimen and which stage of change the patient has reached. He or she then should discuss the stage of change with the patient at follow-up appointments. If the patient has experienced a relapse, the dentist should discuss with him or her the reasons for the relapse and what needs to occur for the patient to get back on track.


   CONCLUSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 
Antimicrobial mouthrinses are safe and effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis, and they should be a part of a daily comprehensive oral health care regimen that includes brushing, flossing and rinsing to prevent or minimize periodontal disease. Although long-term use of alcohol-containing mouthrinses has raised concerns about adverse effects, numerous published studies have supported the safety of these products. Patients’ adherence to a daily regimen that includes the use of an oral antimicrobial rinse in conjunction with brushing and flossing is important to achieve successful outcomes. Understanding the reasons for nonadherence and adapting oral health care recommendations to patients’ specific needs, goals and levels of readiness may facilitate lasting behavioral change.


   FOOTNOTES
 

Dr. Silverman is a professor, Oral Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 521 Parnassus Ave., Box 0422, San Francisco, Calif. 94143-0422, e-mail "silvermans{at}dentistry.ucsf.edu". Address reprint requests to Dr. Silverman.


Ms. Wilder is an associate professor of dental ecology, and the director, Graduate Dental Hygiene Education, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.


   REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 ORAL CANCER
 XEROSTOMIA
 BURNING OR IRRITATION
 COMPLIANCE AND ADHERENCE
 TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL
 CONCLUSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Ciancio SG. Chemical agents: plaque control, calculus reduction and treatment of dental hypersensitivity. Periodontol 2000 1995:8(1):75–86.

  2. Gagari E, Kabani S. Adverse effects of mouthwash use: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:432–9.[Medline]

  3. Ciancio SG, ed. Alcohol in mouthrinse: lack of association with cancer. Biol Ther Dent 1993;9(1):1–2.

  4. Mascarenhas AK. Inconclusive evidence to suggest that alcohol-containing mouthwash increases the risk of oropharyngeal cancer. J Evid Base Dent Pract 2004;4(3):249–50.

  5. Cole P, Rodu B, Mathisen A. Alcohol-containing mouthwash and oropharyngeal cancer: a review of the epidemiology. JADA 2003; 134(8):1079–87.

  6. American Dental Association Council on Dental Therapeutics. Mouthwash use and the risk of oral and pharyngeal cancer (position statement). Sept. 29, 1991.

  7. 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 16):33–43.

  8. Lamster IB, Alfano MC, Seiger MC, Gordon JM. The effect of Listerine Antiseptic on reduction of existing plaque and gingivitis. Clin Prev Dent 1983;5(6):12–6.

  9. Gordon JM, Lamster IB, Sieger MC. Efficacy of Listerine Antiseptic in inhibiting the development of plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1985;12(8):697–704.[Medline]

  10. DePaola LG, Overholser CD, Meiller TF, Minah GE, Niehaus C. Chemotherapeutic inhibition of supragingival dental plaque and gingivitis development. J Clin Periodontol 1989;16(5):311–5.[Medline]

  11. Overholser CD, Meiller TF, DePaola LG, Minah GE, Niehaus C. Comparative effects of 2 chemotherapeutic mouthrinses on the development of supragingival dental plaque and gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17(8):575–9.[Medline]

  12. 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.

  13. 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.[Medline]

  14. 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.

  15. Kerr AR, Katz RW, Ship JA. A comparison of the effects of two commercially available non-prescription mouthrinses on salivary flow rates and xerostomia: a pilot study. Quintessence Int (in press).

  16. Ciancio S. Improving oral health: current considerations. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(supplement 5):4–6.

  17. Addy M, al-Arrayed F, Moran J. The use of an oxidising mouthwash to reduce staining associated with chlorhexidine: studies in vitro and in vivo. J Clin Periodontal 1991;18(4):267–71.[Medline]

  18. Wilson TG Jr. How patient compliance to suggested oral hygiene and maintenance affect periodontal therapy. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42(2):389–403.[Medline]

  19. Boyer EM, Nikias MK. Self-reported compliance with a preventive dental regimen. Clin Prev Dent 1983;5(1):3–7.[Medline]

  20. Strack BB, McCullough MA, Conine TA. Compliance with oral hygiene instruction and hygienists’ empathy. Dent Hyg (Chic) 1980; 54(4):181–4.

  21. Lutfey KE, Wishner WJ. Beyond ‘compliance’ is ‘adherence’: improving the prospect of diabetes care. Diabetes Care 1999; 22(4):635–9.[Abstract]

  22. Prochaska JO, Norcross JC, DiClemente CC. Changing for good: The revolutionary program that explains the six stages of change and teaches you how to free yourself from bad habits. New York: W. Morrow; 1994.

  23. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983;51(3):390–5.[Medline]

  24. Astroth DB, Cross-Poline GN, Stach DJ, Tilliss TS, Annan SD. The transtheoretical model: an approach to behavioral change. J Dent Hyg 2002;76(4):286–95.[Medline]

  25. Turcotte J, Lang R. What does it take for patient adherence? Contemp Oral Hyg 2003;3:18–24.





This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Continuing Education
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Wilder, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Silverman, S., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Wilder, R.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS