METHODS: A 24 h plaque re-growth, double-blinded, randomized crossover trial was carried out. Participants (n = 14) randomly rinsed with test formulation, 0.12% chlorhexidine (control) and placebo mouthwashes for 24 h. A week before the trial, all participants received scaling, polishing and oral hygiene education. On the trial day, the participants received polishing at baseline and rinsed with 15 ml of randomly allocated mouthwash twice daily without oral hygiene measures. After 24 h, plaque index was scored and then the participants entered a 6-days washout period with regular oral hygiene measures. The same protocol was repeated for the next 2 mouthwashes.

RESULTS: The results were expressed as mean (±SD) plaque index. The test mouthwash (0.931 ± 0.372) significantly reduced plaque accumulation when compared with placebo (1.440 ± 0.498, p  0.0167).

CONCLUSIONS: The test mouthwash has an anti-plaque effect for a 24 h period. Longer-term clinical studies are highly encouraged to investigate its anti-plaque effect for longer periods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, parallel, randomized control trial was conducted with 219 university students who were divided into three trial groups using block randomization: CPC, CHX and placebo groups. Clinical oral examinations to assess dental plaque accumulation (modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index), gingival health (Löe and Silness Gingival Index) and tooth staining (modified Lobene Stain Index) were performed at baseline and at 6 weeks.

RESULTS: Plaque and gingivitis scores were not significantly different among participants at baseline. After 6 weeks, plaque and gingivitis scores between the CPC and placebo groups and between the CHX and placebo groups were found to be significantly different. However, there was no significant difference between the CPC and CHX groups. The staining scores of participants in the CPC group were lower than those in the CHX group, but the difference was not significant. Taste alteration and numbness were more common among participants in the CHX group than in the CPC group. No significant difference in the perception of a burning sensation was observed.

METHODS: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled prospective interventional study was conducted in school children aged 8-14 years. The study participants were divided into four groups depending upon the mouthwash used: Group 1 (aloe vera), Group 2 (chlorhexidine), Group 3 (tea tree oil) and Group 4 (placebo). The variables studied included plaque index, gingival index and salivary Streptococcus mutans counts, which were recorded at baseline, 4 weeks after supervised mouth rinse and after 2 weeks of stopping the mouth rinse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:  A double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) on systemically healthy smokers was conducted. A total of 78 smokers, aged 18 to 40 years, were enrolled as per exclusion/inclusion criteria. An alkaline mouthwash was provided to the intervention group and a placebo to control group. Salivary pH and inflammatory biomarker interleukin (IL)-1β levels were evaluated at baseline and at follow-up (14 ± 2 days).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:  Chi-squared test, independaent t-test, and paired t-test were used to observe the changes in parameters among and between groups before and after intervention using SPSS v16 with a significance level of p≤0.050.

RESULTS:  Sixty eight salivary samples were analyzed. All study parameters of the study sample were statistically insignificant between both intervention and control groups at baseline. pH level was 6.56 ± 0.53 at baseline and 6.62 ± 0.45 at follow-up in the intervention group; respective values for control group were 6.70 ± 0.36 and 6.83 ± 0.44 and the changes were not significant (p≥0.071). IL-1β level was 9.39 ± 10.23 pg/µL at baseline and 5.40 ± 6.62 pg/µL at a follow-up in the intervention group and the change was significant (p = 0.001); respective values for the control group were 10.63 ± 11.50, and 9.33 ± 11.73 and the difference was nonsignificant (p = 0.076).

Methods: Ten males recreational runners were randomised to three running trials with a 1 week recovery period between the trials. Each trial involved running at 75% maximum heart rate (HRmax) for 1 h, followed by a 15 min time trial. The participants used a CHO mouth rinse, placebo (PLA) solution or control (CON, no solution) every 15 min during the exercise. Heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and mood states were recorded pre-, during and post-exercise. Saliva samples were collected pre-, post- and 1 h post-exercise.

Results: There was no significant interaction and time effect (P > 0.05) on the salivary lysozyme concentration and running performance, but it was significant (P < 0.05) for HR and RPE (increase in all trials). However, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) in salivary lysozyme concentrations, running performances, HR values or RPE between the trials. Mood states were not significantly different (P > 0.05) between the trials, but one of the mood sub-scales showed a significant (P < 0.001) time effect (increase fatigue in all trials).

Methods: We included patients with histopathologically diagnosed head and neck cancers who had received radiation, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and age range of 15-60 years. Patients with prior radiotherapy and chemotherapy, edentulous status, total parotidectomy, sicca syndrome or on xerosis-induced medications were excluded. We assigned 15 patients each to the Oral7® and salt-soda groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in the mean Decayed, Missing and Filling Teeth (DMFT) score between groups. Head and neck cancer patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly better quality of life than those on salt-soda in relation to the swallowing problems, social eating, mouth opening, xerostomia and illness scales. Patients who were on Oral7® had a significantly lower xerostomia score than patients on salt-soda mouthwash. Patients on Oral7® had a significantly lower mucositis score in week 5-7 compared to patients in the salt-soda group.

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.

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.

Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional study conducted in two different cities of Malaysia. A convenience sampling approach was adopted. A total of 787 participants agreed to participate in the current research. A validated questionnaire translated into national language was used for data collection.

Statistical Analysis Used: Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.

Results: About 302 respondents were in the age range of 18 - 25 years old (38.4%). There were marginally more females (55.7%) than males (44.3%). Although 99.9% of the participants used a toothbrush, a significant majority (n = 590, 75%) used more than a single device to maintain their oral hygiene. Only 311 respondents knew that toothpicks were inappropriate to use to remove food between teeth and gums, while a majority (n = 592, 75.2%) did not realize that some mouthwashes can stain the teeth. Less than half (42.1%) knew that improper use of miswak might harm the teeth.

METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 92 preschool children (4-6 years) were invited to participate with their parents/guardians. Nine parameters of toothbrushing behaviour were assessed from parental responses (questionnaire) and observation of child and parents/guardians (video recording). Oral examination included recording plaque, gingival and dental caries indices. BORIS software was used to assess toothbrushing parameters and Smart PLS was used to perform association with a second-generation multivariate analysis to create models with and without confounding factors.