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.
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
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: 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.
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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: The 0.05% CPC mouthwash was as efficient as 0.12% CHX mouthwash in reducing dental plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation with fewer side effects, supporting its use as an adjunct to toothbrushing.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low to very low-certainty evidence over short time periods to support the effectiveness of home-based chemically-induced bleaching methods compared to placebo for all the outcomes tested.We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of home-based bleaching compositions or any particular method of application or concentration or application time or duration of use, as the overall evidence generated was of very low certainty. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising methods of application, concentrations, application times, and duration of treatment.