Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorPedrazzi, Viniciuspt_BR
dc.contributor.authorEscobar, Elaine Cristinapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCortelli, José Robertopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorHaas, Alex Nogueirapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorAndrade, Ana Karina Pinto dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorPannuti, Cláudio Mendespt_BR
dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Eliete Rodrigues dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorCosta, Fernando Oliveirapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCortelli, Sheila Cavalcapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorRode, Sigmar de Mellopt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2014-11-08T02:12:56Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2014pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1806-8324pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/106472pt_BR
dc.description.abstractGreat possibilities for oral rehabilitation emerged as a result of scientific consolidation, as well as a large number of dental implant applications. Along with implants appeared diseases such as mucositis and peri-implantitis, requiring management through several strategies applied at different stages. Biofilm accumulation is associated with clinical signs manifest by both tooth and implant inflammation. With this in mind, regular and complete biofilm elimination becomes essential for disease prevention and host protection. Chemical control of biofilms, as an adjuvant to mechanical oral hygiene, is fully justified by its simplicity and efficacy proven by studies based on clinical evidence. The purpose of this review was to present a consensus regarding the importance of antimicrobial mouthrinse use as an auxiliary method in chemical periimplant biofilm control. The active ingredients of the several available mouthrinses include bis-biguanide, essential oils, phenols, quaternary ammonium compounds, oxygenating compounds, chlorine derivatives, plant extracts, fluorides, antibiotics and antimicrobial agent combinations. It was concluded that there is strong clinical evidence that at least two mouthrinses have scientifically proven efficacy against different oral biofilms, i.e., chlorhexidine digluconate and essential oils; however, 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate presents a number of unwanted side effects and should be prescribed with caution. Chemical agents seem beneficial in controlling peri-implant inflammation, although they require further investigation. We recommend a scientifically proven antiseptic, with significant short and long term efficacy and with no unwanted side effects, for the prevention and/or treatment of peri-implant disease.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian oral research. São Paulo. Vol. 28, nesp (Jan. 2014), p. 1-9pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectMouthwashesen
dc.subjectAntissépticos bucaispt_BR
dc.subjectBiofilmespt_BR
dc.subjectBiofilmsen
dc.subjectPeri-implantitisen
dc.subjectMucosa bucal : Doencaspt_BR
dc.subjectImplantacao : Dentespt_BR
dc.subjectMucositisen
dc.subjectDental implantsen
dc.titleAntimicrobial mouthrinse use as an adjunct method in peri-implant biofilm controlpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb000936594pt_BR
dc.type.originNacionalpt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples