## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} & \(p\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Mean (SD)** & **Median (IQR)** & **Mean (SD)** & **Median (IQR)** & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{**Incisal**} \\ \hline Baseline & 0.40 (0.31) & 0.50 (0.46) & 0.43 (0.27) & 0.45 (0.16) & 0.818 \\ \hline
3 weeks & 0.42 (0.30) & 0.50 (0.41) & 0.42 (0.26) & 0.49 (0.21) & 0.959 \\ \hline
6 weeks & 0.43 (0.30) & 0.50 (0.32) & 0.43 (0.27) & 0.48 (0.21) & 0.959 \\ \hline Change BL-3w & \(-\)0.01 (0.09) & 0.00 (0.00) & 0.00 (0.04) & 0.00 (0.00) & 0.658 \\ \hline Change BL-6w & \(-\)0.02 (0.10) & 0.00 (0.00) & 0.00 (0.03) & 0.00 (0.00) & 0.917 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{**Proximal**} \\ \hline Baseline & 0.63 (0.48) & 0.75 (0.96) & 0.67 (0.38) & 0.75 (0.45) & 0.986 \\ \hline
3 weeks & 0.63 (0.46) & 0.67 (0.84) & 0.67 (0.39) & 0.74 (0.48) & 0.728 \\ \hline
6 weeks & 0.64 (0.45) & 0.73 (0.84) & 0.69 (0.41) & 0.74 (0.45) & 0.741 \\ \hline Change BL-3w & \(-\)0.00 (0.13) & 0.00 (0.01) & 0.00 (0.05) & 0.00 (0.01) & 0.986 \\ \hline Change BL-6w & \(-\)0.00 (0.13) & 0.00 (0.00) & \(-\)0.02 (0.07) & \(-\)0.00 (0.06) & 0.075 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} n: sample size; SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range; BL: baseline; 3w: 3 weeks; 6w: 6 weeks.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._and yeasts [28]. This antibacterial activity can be attributed to its cationic nature [29], which may prevent bacterial adhesion and hence, biofilm formation. On the other hand, cymenol exhibits direct antimicrobial effects against oral anaerobic species and can also reduce the production of metabolites, including glycolytic and proteolytic enzymes and thereby can reduce deleterious effects of certain microorganisms [30]. Moreover, when formulated as a mouth rinse, CPC and cymenol may act synergistically, by extending the substantivity of their action [14]. However, it is not easy to establish direct comparisons between the present study and others, due to the limited evidence available assessing CPC- and essential oil-containing toothpastes. A study evaluating the use of a mouth rinse with 0.05% CPC for 3 months in orthodontic patients found statistically significant differences in plaque levels between the test and control groups only in the first month [31]. In contrast, other studies evaluating mouth rinses containing 0.07% CPC [28; 32] have demonstrated plaque reductions after 3 and 6 months, when compared to the placebo. When two mouth rinses containing CPC at concentrations of 0.075% and 0.10% were compared, both provided statically significant plaque reductions over six months of use [33]. In addition, numerous systematic reviews have investigated the effectiveness of mouth rinses containing CPC and essential oils [6; 7; 34], only essential oils [35] or CPC [11], demonstrating a statistically significant impact on plaque levels. With regards to gingival inflammation, in the present study, both the test and control groups demonstrated reductions in BOMP, with minimal intergroup differences. Similar results in BOMP were observed with mouth rinses containing 0.05% [36] and 0.07% CPC [28], although these studies observed statistical differences in BOMP at 6 months, when compared with a placebo. Regarding the BOP changes in our study, both the test and control groups demonstrated statistically significant reductions and, more importantly, the changes between baseline and week 6 in the test group revealed a statistically significant higher reduction, when compared to the control group (test 0.19, SD = 0.13 and control 0.12, SD = 0.10, with a mean difference of 0.075, \(p=0.031\)). In addition, an RCT evaluating 0.075% and 0.10% CPC mouth rinses observed a significant reduction in the gingival and bleeding indices, at 3 and 6 months, with a magnitude similar to CHX [33]. When formulated independently, both CPC and essential oils have demonstrated a significant impact on gingival indices, in 6-month RCTs [6].