To Compare Post-Extraction Use of a Novel Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA) Post-operative Mouth Rinse and Daily Use EDTA Mouth Rinse and Standard 0.12% Chlorhexidine (CHX) Post-operative Mouth Rinse and Daily Use Essential Oil (EO) Mouth Rinse.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Extraction Sites After Removal and Bone Replacement Grafting at Extraction Sockets of Dentally Hopeless Single-rooted Teeth

Treatments: Other: 2.6% EDTA and 0.2% EDTA mouth rinse; Other: 0.12% CHX and Essential Oil mouthrinse

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT07191262

UAB Periodontology (Other Identifier)

IRB-300015320

Details and patient eligibility

About

This study will compare commercially available, commonly used mouth rinses (0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) vs. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)) for immediate post-operative and daily antiseptic use after tooth extraction and ridge preservation grafting followed by daily use of commercially available an essential oil (EO) mouthrinse and EDTA mouthrinse.

Full description

This investigator-initiated study will compare commercially available, commonly used mouth rinses for post-operative and daily antiseptic use after tooth extraction and bone grafting withing the extraction socket. Current protocols for post-extraction antiseptic use often employ the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial mouth rinse, commonly 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), during the immediate post-operative period when patients are often advised not to perform mechanical oral hygiene (e.g. toothbrushing and interdental cleaning) at the surgical site. Further, approximately 25% of individuals use over-the-counter (OTC) therapeutic mouth rinses daily. Concerns have been raised about the broad-spectrum antimicrobial nature of CHX and the potential for cytotoxic effects from CHX, which can negatively impact both the microbiome and tissue healing at the extraction site. EDTA is a chelating agent that can bind to metal cations and has historically been used in OTC dentifrices (toothpastes) and mouthrinses to reduce calcification of plaque biofilm to reduce calculus (tartar) formation. Recent data evaluating the use of EDTA chelators have expanded dental healthcare professional's understanding of potential mechanisms of action of EDTA to include impacts on initial binding of primary bacterial colonizers within dental plaque biofilms to the dental pellicle.

Specific aims for this project include the prospective comparison of the following outcomes between the groups during the 12-week healing period:

• Wound closure
• Plaque index
• Adverse healing events
• Patient-reported post-operative outcomes including pain, swelling, change in daily activities, and esthetics
• Dimensional ridge changes

Enrollment: 40 estimated patients

Sex: All

Ages: 18 to 85 years old

Volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

• Able to read and provide informed consent in English
• At least 18 years old
• Established and registered patient of the UAB School of Dentistry
• Patients presenting with one single rooted tooth determined to need extraction and simultaneous ridge preservation bone grafting for future dental implant placement.
• Presence of periodontally healthy, non-carious neighboring teeth and/or healthy restored dental implants on either side of the tooth planned for extraction.
• No anticipated need for surgical and/or endodontic care at teeth adjacent to the proposed surgical site during the study period.

Exclusion criteria

• Non-English speaking
• Age less than 18 years old or older than 85 years old
• Smokers/nicotine users (>10 cigarettes or equivalent/day)
• Patients with systemic pathologies or conditions contraindicating oral surgical procedures or adversely affecting wound healing
• Multiple adjacent teeth require extraction and grafting
• Absence of adjacent teeth/implants on either side of the tooth to be extracted.
• Documented or suspected allergy or sensitivity to any study product

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: None (Open label)

---

40 participants in 2 patient groups

0.12% CHX and Essential Oil mouthrinse

Active Comparator group

Description:

0.12% CHX and Essential Oil mouthrinse

Treatment:

Other: 0.12% CHX and Essential Oil mouthrinse

2.6% EDTA and 0.2% EDTA mouth rinse

Experimental group

Description:

2.6% EDTA and 0.2% EDTA mouth rinse

Treatment:

Other: 2.6% EDTA and 0.2% EDTA mouth rinse