Clinical efficacy of new α-bisabolol mouthwashes in postoperative complications of maxillofacial surgeries: a randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial
- 156 Downloads
The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of α-bisabolol (BISA)-based mouthwashes in the oral hygiene of patients submitted to oral and maxillofacial surgery.
Materials and methods
A randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted with 30 patients, undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery. Three types of mouthwashes were developed, based at 0.12% chlorhexidine, 0.5% BISA, and 0.12% chlorhexidine + 0.5% BISA. The patients were evaluated in the preoperative and postoperative period, divided into three groups according to the mouthwash to be used. In the postoperative period, the oral hygiene quality of the patients was evaluated through the simplified oral hygiene index; the healing of the wounds was evaluated observing the presence of suture dehiscence and/or infection, and the pain was established using the Visual Analogue Scale. The antiseptic effect of the mouthwashes was evaluated in vitro.
There were no differences in the efficacy of BISA-containing mouthwashes for oral hygiene, healing, and pain, compared to chlorhexidine based at 0.12%. There were no differences in the antiseptic activity of chlorhexidine and chlorhexidine + α-bisabolol-based mouthwashes.
The results indicate that BISA-based mouthwashes have clinical efficacy, in the improvement of oral hygiene and wound healing, as well as in the reduction of postoperative pain.
Considering that BISA has analgesic, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties, it is relevant to evaluate the efficacy of BISA-based mouthwashes in the oral hygiene of patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery, seeking a better postoperative recovery.
Keywordsα-Bisabolol Oral and maxillofacial surgery Oral hygiene Healing Pain
The authors are thankful to the support and partnership of the Fortaleza’s Holy House of Mercy (Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Fortaleza) for having accepted and given unconditional and essential support for this research. Without this partnership, the recruitment and clinical evaluation of patients, a fundamental part of our research, would not be possible. The authors also thank the Staff of the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery of this Hospital, Dr. José Maria Sampaio Menezes Junior, Dr. Vera Araújo Magalhães, Dr. Carla Welch da Silva, Dr. Eymard Vieira Borges, Dr. George Matos Ferreira Gomes Junior, Dr. Jonas Ferreira Maciel Gusmão, Dr. Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Carvalho, and Dr. Stélio da Conceição Araújo Neto, for their support during data collection of this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Statement on the welfare of animals
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Andrade IP et al (2011) Concentração inibitória mínina de antissépticos bucais em microorganismos da cavidade oral. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Saúde/Brazilian Journal of Health ResearchGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bugno A et al (2006) Enxaguatórios bucais: avaliação da eficácia antimicrobiana de produtos comercialmente disponíveis. Revista do Instituto Adolfo Lutz (Impresso) 65(1):40–45Google Scholar
- 7.Brunke E.-J. and Hammerschmidt F.-J (1985) Constituents of the essential oil of Salvia stenophylla—first identification of (+)-epi-α-bisabolol in nature, in Essential Oils and Aromatic Plants, Springer. p. 145–150Google Scholar
- 9.Jakovlev V, Von Schlichtegroll A (1969) On the inflammation inhibitory effect of (-)-alpha-bisabolol, an essential component of chamomilla oil. Arzneimittelforschung 19(4):615–616Google Scholar
- 15.Brasil, Farmacopeia Brasileira (2010) Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Editor, Anvisa ^ eBrasília BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
- 16.Fones, A.C. and E.C. Kirk, Mouth hygiene, a course of instruction for dental hygienists: a text-book containing the fundamentals for prophylactic operators. 1916: Lea & FebigerGoogle Scholar
- 20.Brasil, Resolução n° 466/12 sobre pesquisa envolvendo seres humanos, Ministério da Saúde : Conselho Nacional de Saúde, Editor. 2012, Ministério da Saúde BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
- 23.Ortiz MI, Fernández-Martínez E, Soria-Jasso LE, Lucas-Gómez I, Villagómez-Ibarra R, González-García MP, Castañeda-Hernández G, Salinas-Caballero M (2016) Isolation, identification and molecular docking as cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors of the main constituents of Matricaria chamomilla L. extract and its synergistic interaction with diclofenac on nociception and gastric damage in rats. Biomed Pharmacother 78:248–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Simões RCS et al (2011) Avaliação in vitro da atividade antimicrobiana de enxaguatórios bucais. Rev bras odontol 68(1):91Google Scholar
- 32.Batista ALA, Diógenes Alves Uchôa Lins R, de Souza Coelho R, do Nascimento Barbosa D, Moura Belém N, Alves Celestino FJ (2014) Clinical efficacy analysis of the mouth rinsing with pomegranate and chamomile plant extracts in the gingival bleeding reduction. Complement Ther Clin Pract 20(1):93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Glowania H, Raulin C, Swoboda M (1987) Effect of chamomile on wound healing—a clinical double-blind study. Zeitschrift fur Hautkrankheiten 62(17):1262 1267-71Google Scholar
- 38.Golan DE, Tashjian AH, Armstrong EJ (2012) Princípios de farmacologia. Grupo Gen-Guanabara KooganGoogle Scholar
- 41.Ensina LF et al (2009) Reações de hipersensibilidade a medicamentos. Rev bras alerg imunopatol 32(2):42–47Google Scholar
- 42.Bernd LAG (2005) Alergia a medicamentos. Rev bras alerg imunopatol 28(3):125–132Google Scholar
- 43.US Food & Drug Administration, FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA warns about rare but serious allergic reactions with the skin antiseptic chlorhexidine gluconate. US Department of Health & Human Services, 2017Google Scholar
- 45.Jacob SE, Matiz C, Herro EM (2011) Compositae-associated allergic contact dermatitis from Bisabolol. Dermatitis 22(2):102–105Google Scholar
- 49.Castilho AR, Murata RM, Pardi V (2007) Produtos Naturais em Odontologia. Revista Saúde-UNG 1(1):11–19Google Scholar