OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to enlighten the current detection tools developing for fatty acids profile authentication analyses of cosmetic ingredients based on the effectiveness, halal status, safety, advantages and disadvantages of the methods.
METHODOLOGY: The data were extracted from the scientific literatures published between October 2015 and 2020 in the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases, and analyzed with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
FINDINGS: Based on the systemic literature reviews, essential oil, argan oil, mineral oil, vegetable oil, and jojoba oil were among the mostly studied ingredients in cosmetics. Furthermore, a combination of more than one analytical instrument was utilized to profile fatty acids while the determination of the origin of the fatty acids is under scrutiny. The portable mass spectrometer combined with a direct inlet membrane (DIM) probe seems to be the best tool in terms of time consumption, cost, requires no sample preparation with high efficiency. The current review showed that the best cosmetic base is when the oil is composed of high concentration of fatty acids such as linoleic, oleic, stearic acid, and palmitic acids with concentration range from 19.7 - 46.30%, which offers various beneficial properties to cosmetic products.
METHODS: Databases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta-analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse-variance random-effects model.
RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty-one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non-chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta-analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non-chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = -1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31, -0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a probable benefit of oil pulling in improving gingival health. Chlorhexidine remained superior in reducing the amount of plaque, compared to oil pulling. However, there was very low certainty in the evidence albeit the clinically beneficial effect of oil pulling intervention.