Method: After signing the informed consent, at least 100 subjects meeting selection criteria were required to be assessed for presence or absence of visible undisclosed plaque within the “aesthetic zone”(AZ) (buccal surfaces of teeth #6-11, and #22-27). Subjects were then evaluated for PI by a trained and validated examiner. PI and VP were compared based on descriptive statistics.
Result: 100 subjects completed the study and no adverse events were observed. 80% percent of the subjects presented VP prior to plaque disclosure; with a mean aesthetic zone PI (AZPI) of 2.57 and mean whole mouth PI (WMPI) 2.79. The other 20% of subjects did not have VP and showed mean AZPI of1.46 and a mean WMPI 2.22. The difference in mean PI values for subjects with visible vs. non-detected plaque was greater in the aesthetic zone than the whole mouth (1.11 and 0.57, respectively).
Conclusion: The detection of VP in the aesthetic zone was shown to be a clinical alternative for plaque detection when PI cannot be assessed. Therefore, visible plaque may be a good indicator of poor oral hygiene.
Keywords: Clinical trials, Gingivitis, Mouthrinses, Plaque and Visible Plaque