MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study measured the effects within 4 weeks in relation to summated xerostomia inventory (SXI) and unstimulated whole saliva (UWS). Patients randomized into the interventional arm were prescribed an immunologically active saliva substitute (IASS), while patients in the control arm were prescribed a non-immunologically active mouthwash as placebo.
RESULTS: The study population consisted of 94 patients. There was a significant difference in SXI difference (p < 0.0001) and UWS difference (p < 0.0001) between control and interventional arms. No harmful side effects associated with the use of either mouthwash encountered throughout the study duration.
CONCLUSION: IASS mouthwash significantly reduces subjective xerostomia scores measured using SXI and improves objective measurement of salivary flow using UWS among nasopharyngeal cancer survivors with xerostomia.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IASS is significantly more effective in improving subjective and objective xerostomia measurements compared to non-immunologically active mouthwash. Additionally, this treatment is very safe, with superior side effect profiles.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04491435.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, parallel group randomised control clinical trial involving N = 49 adult participants with xerostomia was carried out. Intervention group received natural enzymes moisturising mouthwash (with active ingredients lactoferrin, lysozyme, lactoperoxidase and glucose oxidase); while control group received benzydamine mouthwash. Mouthwashes were repacked, labelled with specific code, and were given to participants by third-party. Subjects were instructed to rinse with the mouthwash 4 times per day at a specific period, for 2 weeks. Symptoms of xerostomia were assessed using Xerostomia Inventory at day 0 and 14; together with the assessment of Clinical Oral Dryness Score (CODS), and measurement of resting and stimulated salivary flow rate.
RESULTS: 48 participants completed the clinical follow-up, and n = 1 had lost of follow-up. From the 48 participants, n = 23 received natural enzymes mouthwash, while n = 25 received benzydamine mouthwash. Intervention group achieved reduction in symptoms of xerostomia from baseline. Intervention group also showed significantly better improvements in the cognitive perception of dry mouth and oromotor function such as chewing, swallowing and speech of the participants; and reduction in waking up at night to drink water (p
METHODS: A single centre, latin-square cross-over, double masked, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 45 chronic generalized gingivitis subjects who were chosen from the dental clinic of MAHSA University, Malaysia. A total of 45 subjects were randomly assigned into one of the three different groups (n = 15 each) using a computer-generated random allocation sequence: Group A Propolis mouthwash; Group B Chlorhexidine mouthwash; and Group C Placebo mouthwash. Supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation were assessed by full mouth Plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) at baseline and after 21 days. The study was divided into three phases, each phase lasted for 21 days separated by a washout period of 15 days in between them. Groups A, B and C were treated with 0.2% Propolis, Chlorhexidine, and Placebo mouthwash, respectively, in phase I. The study subjects were instructed to use the assigned mouthwash twice daily for 1 min for 21 days. On day 22nd, the subjects were recalled for measurement of PI and GI. After phase I, mouthwash was crossed over as dictated by the Latin square design in phase II and III.
RESULTS: At baseline, intergroup comparison revealed no statistically significant difference between Groups A, B and C (p > 0.05). On day 21, one-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant difference between the three groups for PI (p
Materials and Methods: A total of 111 subjects who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly included in the study. The subjects were recalled after 1 month of the commencement of fixed orthodontic treatment for the recording of baseline data including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and modified papillary bleeding index (MPBI). After recording of the baseline data, the subjects were randomly allocated into each of the intervention groups, i.e., group A (manual tooth brush), group B (powered tooth brush), and group C (manual tooth brush combined with mouthwash) by lottery method. Further, all the subjects were recalled after 1 and 2 months for recording the data.
Results: Regarding plaque levels, it was seen that there was a highly statistically significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.001), with the manual tooth brush combined with chlorhexidine mouthwash group recording the lowest mean PI score of 0.5 ± 0.39. A comparison of the mean GI scores among the groups at the end of 2 months shows a highly statistically significant difference (P = 0.001). The mean MPBI scores at the end of 2 months were highly statistically significant among the three groups (P = 0.001), with the group C recording the lowest mean MPBI score of 0.3 ± 0.3.
Conclusion: The powered tooth brush group subjects exhibited significantly lesser PI, GI, and MPBI scores than the manual tooth brush group at the end of 2 months, whereas the manual tooth brush combined with chlorhexidine mouth wash group subjects showed maximum improvement, having significantly lesser PI and GI scores than the powered tooth brush group.
METHODS: Using the PRISMA 2020 Protocol, a systematic search of the publications was undertaken from the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Science Direct, PubMed, and Google Scholars for randomized control trials published through 31st January 2022 to determine the effectiveness of Salvadora persica-extract mouthwash relative to chlorhexidine gluconate as anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis properties.
RESULTS: A total of 1809 titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review while only sixteen were selected for meta-analysis. The overall effects of standardized mean difference and 95% CI were 0.89 [95% CI 0.09 to 1.69] with a χ2 statistic of 2.54, 15 degrees of freedom (p
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias. None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers. The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent. The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.
METHODS: In a double blind, randomised crossover design, 12 well-trained male runners completed 4 running time to exhaustion (TTE) trials at a speed equivalent to 70% of VO2peak in a thermoneutral condition. Throughout each run, participants mouth rinsed and expectorated every 15 min either 25 mL of 6% CHO or a placebo (PLA) solution for 10 s. The four TTEs consisted of two trials in the euhydrated (EU-CHO and EU-PLA) and two trials in the dehydrated (DY-CHO and DY-PLA) state. Prior to each TTE run, participants were dehydrated via exercise and allowed a passive rest period during which they were fed and either rehydrated equivalent to their body mass deficit (i.e., EU trials) or ingested only 50 mL of water (DY trials).
RESULTS: CHO mouth rinsing significantly improved TTE performance in the DY compared to the EU trials (78.2 ± 4.3 vs. 76.9 ± 3.8 min, P = 0.02). The arousal level of the runners was significantly higher in the DY compared to the EU trials (P = 0.02). There was no significant difference among trials in heart rate, plasma glucose and lactate, and psychological measures.
CONCLUSIONS: CHO mouth rinsing enhanced running performance significantly more when participants were dehydrated vs. euhydrated due to the greater sensitivity of oral receptors related to thirst and central mediated activation. These results show that level of dehydration alters the effect of brain perception with presence of CHO.
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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02624336 in December 3, 2015.