Efficacy of Herbal vs. Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Experimental Gingivitis: A Cross-over Clinical and Microbiological Study

<b>Background</b>: Chlorhexidine (CHX) is an effective antiseptic rinse for managing gingival inflammation; however, side effects such as staining and altered taste limit its long-term use. StellaLife<sup>®</sup> (SL), an herbal-based mouth rinse and a gel, has shown promising in vitro effects, including enhanced biocompatibility and wound healing. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of SL and 0.12% CHX in an experimental gingivitis model. <b>Methods</b>: In this randomized, controlled, cross-over clinical trial, 34 dental students received both treatment regimens in alternating two-week phases following prophylaxis. Group 1 used SL (mouth rinse and the gel) and then crossed over to CHX with placebo gel. Group 2 followed the reverse sequence. Participants refrained from oral hygiene during treatment phases. Clinical parameters and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were assessed at baseline and post-treatment. Paired <i>t</i>-tests and Bonferroni corrections were applied (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Bacterial count was determined by an external laboratory using a PCR test. Mean values for bacteria after SL and CHX use measured in genome copies/mL for <i>Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans</i>, <i>P. gingivalis</i>, <i>T. denticola</i>, <i>T. forsythia</i> and <i>F. nucleatum</i>. <b>Results</b>: No statistically significant differences were observed between the SL and CHX groups for PI (<i>p</i> = 0.057), GI (<i>p</i> = 0.960), PD (<i>p</i> = 0.112), BOP (<i>p</i> = 0.895), GR (<i>p</i> = 0.768), CAL (<i>p</i> = 0.112), or GCF (<i>p</i> = 0.951). Both regimens improved periodontal parameters similarly. No significant differences were found between CHX and SL use in respect to periodontal pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity. <b>Conclusions</b>: SL demonstrated clinical efficacy comparable to CHX in managing experimental gingivitis. Given its favorable safety profile, SL may serve as a promising alternative to CHX, though larger and longer-term studies are warranted.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dentistry Journal
Published
2025-12-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13120608
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.47

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy of Herbal vs. Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Experimental Gingivitis: A Cross-over Clinical and Microbiological Study

Zeshan Aslam, Georgios E. Romanos, Nathan E. Estrin, Zhong Wang et al.
1 citations
Dentistry Journal
Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
1.47
article

Efficacy of Herbal vs. Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Experimental Gingivitis: A Cross-over Clinical and Microbiological Study

Zeshan Aslam, Georgios E. Romanos, Nathan E. Estrin, Zhong Wang, Jamie Wu, Nina K. Anderson
article en
1 citations

Abstract

<b>Background</b>: Chlorhexidine (CHX) is an effective antiseptic rinse for managing gingival inflammation; however, side effects such as staining and altered taste limit its long-term use. StellaLife<sup>®</sup> (SL), an herbal-based mouth rinse and a gel, has shown promising in vitro effects, including enhanced biocompatibility and wound healing. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of SL and 0.12% CHX in an experimental gingivitis model. <b>Methods</b>: In this randomized, controlled, cross-over clinical trial, 34 dental students received both treatment regimens in alternating two-week phases following prophylaxis. Group 1 used SL (mouth rinse and the gel) and then crossed over to CHX with placebo gel. Group 2 followed the reverse sequence. Participants refrained from oral hygiene during treatment phases. Clinical parameters and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were assessed at baseline and post-treatment. Paired <i>t</i>-tests and Bonferroni corrections were applied (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Bacterial count was determined by an external laboratory using a PCR test. Mean values for bacteria after SL and CHX use measured in genome copies/mL for <i>Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans</i>, <i>P. gingivalis</i>, <i>T. denticola</i>, <i>T. forsythia</i> and <i>F. nucleatum</i>. <b>Results</b>: No statistically significant differences were observed between the SL and CHX groups for PI (<i>p</i> = 0.057), GI (<i>p</i> = 0.960), PD (<i>p</i> = 0.112), BOP (<i>p</i> = 0.895), GR (<i>p</i> = 0.768), CAL (<i>p</i> = 0.112), or GCF (<i>p</i> = 0.951). Both regimens improved periodontal parameters similarly. No significant differences were found between CHX and SL use in respect to periodontal pathogenic bacteria in the oral cavity. <b>Conclusions</b>: SL demonstrated clinical efficacy comparable to CHX in managing experimental gingivitis. Given its favorable safety profile, SL may serve as a promising alternative to CHX, though larger and longer-term studies are warranted.

Dentistry JournalVol. 13(12)
University of Iowa (US), Stony Brook School (US), Stony Brook University (US)
Stony Brook University
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
1.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.