Research: GULTZ and colleagues,

Listed in Issue 49


GULTZ and colleagues, College of Dentistry, New York University, New York USA determined and compared the antimicrobial effectiveness of 3 commercial mouthrinses and a water control.



Antimicrobial efficacy of these products was determined against aerobic, mirco-aerophilic and anaerobic bacteria. 20 people participated in the study. A pre-test saliva sample was taken at each experimental session for each person, which was divided and used to grow 3 bacterial cultures under the different incubation environments. Following giving the pre-test sample, the person rinsed with one of the mouthrinses or the water control for 30 seconds, waited one hour, and then gave a post-test saliva sample, which again was divided and used to culture the different bacteria. After the 48-hour incubation period, the bacterial colonies on each plate were counted and compared.


All the mouthrinses used performed significantly better than the water control. Herbal mouth and gum therapy and Peridex were not statistically significantly different in their inhibition of aerobic, microaerophilic and anaerobic bacteria. However, both Herbal mouth and gum therapy and Peridex were significantly more effective than Listerine in their inhibition of the 3 different types of bacteria.



Gultz J et al. An in vivo comparison of the antimicrobial activities of three mouthrinses. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry 9(2): 43-5. 1998.

ICAN Skyscraper

Scientific and Medical Network 2

Cycle Around the World for Charity 2023

Climb Mount Kilimanjaro Charity 2023

Cycle from Milan to Venice for Regain 2023

top of the page