Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Activity of 0.2% Lemongrass Oil and 0.2% Chlorhexidine as a Preprocedural Mouth Rinse: A Randomised Controlled, Parallel Design, Split-mouth Clinical Trial

Abstract

Introduction: The aerosols produced by an ultrasonic scaler contain bacteria that may enter the respiratory systems of both dental surgeons and patients. Lemongrass oil is one of the essential oils with enormous antibacterial, antifungal, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antipyretic effects. Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of commercially available preprocedural mouth rinses, containing 0.2% lemongrass oil mouthwash and a 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate solution, in reducing the levels of viable bacteria in aerosols. Materials and Methods: This single-centre double-blinded randomised controlled parallel design split-mouth clinical trial was planned among patients in the Department of Periodontics attending Vishnu Dental College and Hospital in Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. The study was conducted for 40 days, from August 2022 to October 2022. Two distinct types of preprocedural mouth rinses (lemongrass oil and chlorhexidine) were used on 56 participants with Stage II or III and Grade B periodontitis. A total of 56 subjects were randomly assigned to two groups: Group A (0.2% lemongrass oil) and Group B (0.2% chlorhexidine), using a simple coin toss method. Colony-forming units (CFUs) with and without rinsing in each group were assessed and studied. CFUs collected on blood agar plates were counted during ultrasonic scaling both with and without rinsing. International Business Machine (IBM) Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used for data analysis. Paired t-tests and independent t-tests were used for intragroup and intergroup comparisons for both groups. Results: The mean CFU count in the chlorhexidine group without rinsing was 259.6±26.6, and with rinsing, it was 140.7±22.6, which was statistically significant (p-value < 0.001). In the lemongrass oil group, the CFU count without rinsing was 263.5±26.9, and with rinsing, it was 147.18±33.82, which was also statistically significant (p-value<0.001). In the intergroup comparison, the p-values for both groups-using preprocedural rinse (Group A vs. Group B for quadrants 2 and 3) and without preprocedural rinse (Group A vs. Group B for quadrants 1 and 4)-were 0.40 and 0.58, respectively, which were not significant. Conclusion: Both preprocedural mouth rinses were equally effective in reducing microbial counts in aerosols during ultrasonic scaling.

Keywords

• antibacterial
• anti-infective agents
• mouthwash
• periodontitis