In vitro study compares mouthwash effectiveness on enamel demineralization in orthodontic patients, suggesting viable alternatives to chlorhexidine.
Background/Objectives: Chlorhexidine (CHX) and alcoholic (A+) mouthwashes are associated with adverse oral effects. Therefore, this study compared the efficacies of non-alcoholic mouthwashes, including fluoride (A−) and herbal (Hr) rinses, for preventing bacterial accumulation and enamel demineralization around metal brackets (MBs), ceramic brackets (CBs), and resin composite attachments (RCAs). Methods: Following the exposure to CHX, A+, A−, and Hr rinses for 1 min, the growth of Streptococcus mutans on MB, CB, and RCA was assessed using colony-forming units and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Controls included attachments without intervention. In another setting, enamel with bonded attachments was exposed to mouthwashes for 1 min and subjected to cariogenic demineralization for 24 h. Enamel’s Vickers microhardness was measured before and after the demineralization challenge. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and one-/two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s tests. Results: CHX mouthwash demonstrated superior antimicrobial efficacy against S. mutans biofilms across all orthodontic attachments (p < 0.05). On metallic brackets, CHX (0 ± 0 log10) and A− (1.7 ± 0.4 log10) significantly (p < 0.001) outperformed controls (6.9 ± 0.1 log10), Hr (6.08 ± 0.2 log10), and A+ (6.2 ± 0.6 log10). Similar patterns emerged for ceramic brackets, with CHX (0 ± 0 log10) and A− (1.4 ± 0 log10) superior to controls (6.6 ± 0.4 log10). On resin composite attachments, CHX (2.9 ± 0.05 log10) and Hr (3.4 ± 0.08 log10) exceeded controls (5.4 ± 0.09 log10) in inhibiting the biofilm growth (p < 0.05). Enamel microhardness reduction was significantly influenced by attachment type (p < 0.0001) and mouthwash type (p = 0.0063), with significant interaction between variables (p = 0.0052). Conclusions: CHX and A− mouthwashes effectively inhibited S. mutans biofilms on orthodontic attachments, while attachment type and mouthwash significantly influenced enamel microhardness reduction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abualsaud et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: