AIM: To summarize and rank the effectiveness of clinical interventions using different agents for primary prevention of early childhood caries (ECC).

DESIGN: Two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials with at least 12-month follow-up. The network meta-analysis (NMA) on different agents was based on a random-effects model and frequentist approach. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI of the caries increment were calculated in terms of either dmft or dmfs and used in the NMA. Caries incidences at the child level were compared using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. The effectiveness of the agents was ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

RESULTS: After screening 3807 publications and selection, the NMA finally included 33 trials. These trials used either a single or combination of agents such as fluorides, chlorhexidine, casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, probiotics, xylitol, and triclosan. Compared with control, fluoride foam (FF; SMD -0.69, 95% CI: -1.06, -0.32) and fluoride salt (F salt; SMD -0.66, 95% CI: -1.20, -0.13) were effective in preventing caries increment. Probiotic milk plus low fluoride toothpaste (PMLFTP; OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.77), FF (OR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.37, 0.63), fluoride varnish (FV; OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.81), and fluoride varnish plus high fluoride toothpaste (FVHFTP; OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57, 0.93) were effectively preventing caries incidence. According to the SUCRA, FF ranked first in preventing caries increment, whereas PMLFTP ranked first in preventing caries incidence.

METHODS: One hundred and twenty dentine discs were divided into three groups. The discs from each group were brushed with toothpaste containing bioactive glass, arginine and control toothpaste. Each group was then divided into four subgroups and exposed to acidic soft drink over four different time durations.

RESULTS: The scoring and the percentage of occluded dentinal tubules by Novamin-containing toothpaste was significantly better compared with arginine or the control toothpaste. Acidic soft drink challenge reduced the extent of dentinal tubules occlusion along with time. Dentinal tubules occluded by Novamin-containing toothpaste withstand the acidic challenge comparatively for a longer period.

METHODS: This study included 3 groups with 15 orthodontic patients in each. The control group included patients who had no probiotic treatment, the subjects in the kefir group consumed 2 × 100 ml of kefir (Atatürk Orman Ciftligi, Ankara, Turkey) per day, and the subjects in the toothpaste group brushed their teeth with toothpaste with probiotic content (GD toothpaste; Dental Asia Manufacturing, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia) twice a day. Samples were collected at 3 times: beginning of the study, 3 weeks later, and 6 weeks later. The salivary flow rate, buffer capacity, and Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the saliva were evaluated. Chair-side kits were used to determine the S mutans and Lactobacillus levels.

RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease was observed in the salivary S mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the kefir and toothpaste groups compared with the control group (P <0.05). A statistically significant increase was observed in the toothpaste group compared with the control and kefir groups in buffer capacity. Changes in the salivary flow rate were not statistically significant.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of home-based tooth whitening products with chemical bleaching action, dispensed by a dentist or over-the-counter.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 12 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 12 June 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 June 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (12 June 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (12 June 2018) were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in our review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults who were 18 years and above, and compared dentist-dispensed or over-the-counter tooth whitening (bleaching) products with placebo or other comparable products.Quasi-randomised trials, combination of in-office and home-based treatments, and home-based products having physical removal of stains were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials. Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 71 trials in the review with 26 studies (1398 participants) comparing a bleaching agent to placebo and 51 studies (2382 participants) comparing a bleaching agent to another bleaching agent. Two studies were at low overall risk of bias; two at high overall risk of bias; and the remaining 67 at unclear overall risk of bias.The bleaching agents (carbamide peroxide (CP) gel in tray, hydrogen peroxide (HP) gel in tray, HP strips, CP paint-on gel, HP paint-on gel, sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) chewing gum, sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) chewing gum, and HP mouthwash) at different concentrations with varying application times whitened teeth compared to placebo over a short time period (from 2 weeks to 6 months), however the certainty of the evidence is low to very low.In trials comparing one bleaching agent to another, concentrations, application method and application times, and duration of use varied widely. Most of the comparisons were reported in single trials with small sample sizes and event rates and certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to very low. Therefore the evidence currently available is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions regarding the superiority of home-based bleaching compositions or any particular method of application or concentration or application time or duration of use.Tooth sensitivity and oral irritation were the most common side effects which were more prevalent with higher concentrations of active agents though the effects were mild and transient. Tooth whitening did not have any effect on oral health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.