Comparative analysis of tablet and gel agents for dental plaque disclosure

Relevance. Dental plaque is a major etiological factor in caries and periodontal diseases, yet it is often invisible to the naked eye, making it difficult for patients to remove thoroughly during routine brushing. Plaque-disclosing agents are used to stain plaque and highlight areas requiring improved cleaning. They come in various forms (tablets, gels, solutions, etc.), but it remains unclear which form is most effective and patient-friendly.

Aim. To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of tablet and gel forms of Plack Test disclosing agent for dental plaque visualization.

Materials and methods. A randomized crossover trial was conducted with 100 volunteers (18–45 years). Each participant tested both a disclosing tablet and a disclosing gel in sequence (in two groups with opposite order). The Simplified Oral Hygiene Index (OHI-S) was measured before and after using each agent to quantify plaque levels. After each disclosure, participants completed a questionnaire rating the ease of use, taste, perceived effectiveness, and any adverse sensations. A final survey determined overall preference.

Results. Both the tablet and gel significantly reduced plaque index scores after use (mean OHI-S decreased from ~2.5 at baseline to ~0.5 post-cleaning with aid of disclosure, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the tablet and gel in objective plaque reduction (p>0.05). However, subjective ratings favored the tablet: participants found it easier to use (4.5 ± 0.6 vs 4.0 ± 0.8 out of 5, p < 0.05) and better-tasting (4.2 ± 0.5 vs 3.5 ± 0.8, p < 0.05) than the gel. Perceived effectiveness was high for both (4.7 vs 4.6, p > 0.05).

Conclusions. The conducted study demonstrated that both tablets and gel used for dental plaque disclosure are comparably effective in terms of objective performance, as confirmed by the OHI-S index. However, participants' subjective assessments strongly favored the tablet form, which was rated higher due to its ease of use, more pleasant taste, and fewer side effects. A significant positive correlation was also found between participants’ subjective evaluation of effectiveness and the actual reduction in plaque levels. As a result, the vast majority of participants (85%) preferred the tablet form as the disclosing agent.

1. Mensi M, Scotti E, Sordillo A, Agosti R, Calza S. Plaque disclosing agent as a guide for professional biofilm removal: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Dent Hyg. 2020;18(3):285–294. doi: 10.1111/idh.12442

2. Oliveira LM, Pazinatto J, Zanatta FB. Are oral hygiene instructions with aid of plaque-disclosing methods effective in improving self-performed dental plaque control? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Dent Hyg. 2021;19(3):239–254. doi: 10.1111/idh.12491

3. D'Elia G, Floris W, Marini L, Corridore D, Rojas MA, Ottolenghi L, et al. Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of home oral hygiene measures – a narrative review of dental biofilm indices. Dent J (Basel). 2023;11(7):172. doi: 10.3390/dj11070172

4. Jung IH, Yeon KH, Song HR, Hwang YS. Cytotoxicity of dental disclosing solution on gingival epithelial cells in vitro. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2020;6(6):669–676. doi: 10.1002/cre2.321

5. Han S, Kim S, Lee T, Jung H, Lee K, Song JS. Comparison of the short-term effect of oral hygiene education via quantitative light-induced fluorescence technology versus disclosing agents in children: a randomized crossover clinical trial. Children (Basel). 2024;11(11):1371. doi: 10.3390/children11111371

6. Eidenhardt Z, Ritsert A, Shankar-Subramanian S, Ebel S, Margraf-Stiksrud J, Deinzer R. Tooth brushing performance in adolescents as compared to best-practice demonstration in group prophylaxis programs: an observational study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):359. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01692-z

7. Yanushevich OO, Maev IV, Krikheli NI, Andreev DN, Lyamina SV, Sokolov FS, et al. Prevalence and risk of dental erosion in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(7):126. doi: 10.3390/dj10070126

8. Duane B, Yap T, Neelakantan P, Anthonappa R, Bescos R, McGrath C, et al. Mouthwashes: alternatives and future directions. Int Dent J. 2023;73(S2):S86–S97. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.011

9. Sedghi L, DiMassa V, Harrington A, Lynch SV, Kapila YL. The oral microbiome: role of key organisms and complex networks in oral health and disease. Periodontol 2000. 2021;87(1):107–131. doi: 10.1111/prd.12296

10. Simpson TC, Clarkson JE, Worthington HV, Mac-Donald L, Weldon JC, Needleman I, et al. Treatment of periodontitis for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;4(4):CD004714. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004714.pub4

11. Seneviratne CJ, Zhang CF, Samaranayake LP. Dental plaque biofilm in oral health and disease. Chin J Dent Res. 2011;14(2):87–94. PMID: 22319749. Available from: https://www.quintessence-publishing.com/deu/en/article/851685

12. Marouf N, Cai W, Said KN, Daas H, Diab H, Chinta VR, et al. Association between periodontitis and severity of COVID-19 infection: a case–control study. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48(4):483–491. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13435

13. Sanz M, Del Castillo AM, Jepsen S, Gonzalez-Juanatey JR, D'Aiuto F, Bouchard P, et al. Periodontitis and cardiovascular diseases: consensus report. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(3):268–288. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13189

14. Bernabehttps E, Marcenes W, Hernandez CR, Bailey J, Abreu LG, Alipour V, et al. Global burden of oral conditions in 1990–2017: a systematic analysis. J Dent Res. 2020; 99(4): 362–373. doi: 10.1177/0022034520908533

15. Kim J, Choi Y, Song Y, Park W. Smartphone-based telemonitoring with an interactive toothbrush to improve oral hygiene: a 6-month randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2025; 27(2): e41802. doi: 10.2196/65128

16. Orekhova LYu, Prokhorova OV, Shalamai LI, Rachina DV, Burenkova NE. Comparative study of combined subgingival plaque removal techniques. Pediatric dentistry and dental prophylaxis. 2020;20(2):109-115 (In Russ.). doi: 10.33925/1683-3031-2020-20-2-109-115

17. Loboda ES, Orekhova LY, Grinenko EV, Kropotina AY, Iamanidze NA, Atrushkevich VG. Evaluation of the effectiveness of professional hygiene results in patients with diabetes mellitus type I and overweight. Parodontologiya. 2021;26(1):20-27 (In Russ.). doi: 10.33925/1683-3759-2021-26-1-20-27