-
International Dental Journal Jun 2022The aim of this work was to review the current uses of chlorhexidine (CHX) in dentistry based on its mechanism of action, whilst highlighting the most effective... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this work was to review the current uses of chlorhexidine (CHX) in dentistry based on its mechanism of action, whilst highlighting the most effective protocols that render the highest clinical efficacy whilst limiting adverse drug reactions.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using the key words chlorhexidine, mechanism of action, adverse effects, and dentistry using databases in the University of Toronto library system. The titles and abstracts were read, and relevant articles were selected.
RESULTS
A total of 1100 publications were identified, 100 were investigated, and 67 of them were used. Out of the 67 selected articles, 12 were reviews on CHX; 5 articles focussed on CHX gels; 13 focussed on CHX mouthwashes; 8 focussed on CHX products; 13 discussed adverse effects associated with CHX; 13 focussed on periodontal pathology and treatment; 6 focussed on implant periodontal and dental surgeries; 7 evaluated effects on caries; 6 looked at the mechanisms of action; and 12 focussed on the antibacterial and antimicrobial impact on the oral biome. There were multiple areas of overlap amongst the articles, and results showed that CHX provides different uses, but mainly as an adjunct to various treatments. Mouthwash was the most superior medium when used in short time spans when mechanical prophylaxis was not possible for the prevention of gingivitis and maintenance of oral hygiene. CHX products are often used in periodontics, post-oral surgical procedures, and as a prophylaxis for multiple invasive procedures with minimal adverse effects. Tooth staining was the most negative adverse effect reported by patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CHX's antimicrobial properties make it an ideal prophylactic when mechanical debridement is not possible. CHX mouthwash appears to be more effective compared to gels. Concentrations of 0.12% to 0.2% are recommended; any mouthwash with concentrations above 0.2% will unnecessarily increase the unwanted side effects. CHX is useful amongst various areas of dentistry including oral surgery, periodontics, and even general dentistry. For long-term treatments, especially in periodontitis patients (stage I-III) undergoing nonsurgical treatments, CHX chips are recommended. CHX chips are also recommended as an adjunct to implant debridement in patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis over CHX mouthwash and gels.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Gels; Humans; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene
PubMed: 35287956
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.01.005 -
Dental Clinics of North America Oct 2015Also note that structured abstracts are not allowed per journal style: What is the effect of a mouthwash containing various active chemical ingredients on plaque control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Also note that structured abstracts are not allowed per journal style: What is the effect of a mouthwash containing various active chemical ingredients on plaque control and managing gingivitis in adults based on evidence gathered from existing systematic reviews? The summarized evidence suggests that mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine(CHX) and essential oils (EO) had a large effect supported by a strong body of evidence. Also there was strong evidence for a moderate effect of cetylpyridinium chloride(CPC). Evidence suggests that a CHX mouthwash is the first choice, the most reliable alternative is EO. No difference between CHX and EO with respect to gingivitis was observed.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Oral Health
PubMed: 26427569
DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2015.06.002 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2021Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used mouthwash with potent anti-microbial effects useful for the management of oral disease. However, we are moving away from the view... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES
Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used mouthwash with potent anti-microbial effects useful for the management of oral disease. However, we are moving away from the view of simply 'killing' bacteria, towards managing oral microbial ecosystems (oral microbiome), as an integrated system, to promote oral and systemic health. Here, we aimed to review the effects of CHX mouthwash on the balance of microbial communities in the mouth in vivo in oral health and disease.
SOURCES AND STUDY SECTION
The hierarchy of evidence was applied, with systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials consulted where available and case controlled studies being described thereafter. Search terms for each subject category were entered into MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database. Focussing on metagenomics studies provides unique overview of the oral microbiome as an integrated system.
DATA
Evidence was limited, but several next generation sequencing case-controlled studies suggested that in an integrated system, CHX may cause a shift towards lower bacterial diversity and abundance, in particular nitrate-reducing bacteria in vivo. CHX also appeared to alter salivary pH, lactate, nitrate and nitrite concentrations in saliva. Evidence regarding the effects of CHX on the oral microbiome during oral disease is still emerging.
CONCLUSIONS
CHX alters the composition the oral microbiome. However, as CHX use remains widespread in dentistry to manage oral disease, urgent research using metagenomics studies of microbial communities in vivo are still needed to determine CHX mouthwash is 'good', 'bad' or otherwise for bacteria, in the context of oral and systemic health.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Microbiota; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Nitrates
PubMed: 34418463
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103768 -
International Dental Journal Nov 2023This narrative review describes the oral microbiome, and its role in oral health and disease, before considering the impact of commonly used over-the-counter (OTC)... (Review)
Review
This narrative review describes the oral microbiome, and its role in oral health and disease, before considering the impact of commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes on oral bacteria, viruses, bacteriophages, and fungi that make up these microbial communities in different niches of the mouth. Whilst certain mouthwashes have proven antimicrobial actions and clinical effectiveness supported by robust evidence, this review reports more recent metagenomics evidence, suggesting that mouthwashes such as chlorhexidine may cause "dysbiosis," whereby certain species of bacteria are killed, leaving others, sometimes unwanted, to predominate. There is little known about the effects of mouthwashes on fungi and viruses in the context of the oral microbiome (virome) in vivo, despite evidence that they "kill" certain viral pathogens ex vivo. Evidence for mouthwashes, much like antibiotics, is also emerging with regards to antimicrobial resistance, and this should further be considered in the context of their widespread use by clinicians and patients. Therefore, considering the potential of currently available OTC mouthwashes to alter the oral microbiome, this article finally proposes that the ideal mouthwash, whilst combatting oral disease, should "balance" antimicrobial communities, especially those associated with health. Which antimicrobial mouthwash best fits this ideal remains uncertain.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Chlorhexidine; Mouth; Anti-Infective Agents; Bacteria; Microbiota
PubMed: 37867065
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.010 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2020Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used antiseptic mouthwash, used by dental practitioners and the public, due to its antimicrobial effects. The aim of this article was... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used antiseptic mouthwash, used by dental practitioners and the public, due to its antimicrobial effects. The aim of this article was to provide a narrative review of current antimicrobial uses of CHX relevant to dentistry in the context of oral diseases, highlighting need for further studies to support its safe and appropriate use.
STUDY SELECTION, DATA AND SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and national (UK and US) guidelines were consulted where available, with search terms for each subject category entered into MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database.
RESULTS
Some evidence existed to support adjunctive short-term use of CHX to manage dental plaque, and reduce clinical symptoms of gingivitis, dry socket, as well as reduce aerosolisation of bacteria. However, use must be weighed alongside the less desirable effects of CHX, including extrinsic staining of teeth, antimicrobial resistance to antiseptic agents and the rare, but fatal, allergic reactions to CHX. Conversely, evidence for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine to manage or prevent periodontitis, dental caries, necrotising periodontal diseases, peri-implantitis, and infections associated with extraction and aerosolised viruses remains less certain.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of CHX in dentistry and oral healthcare continues to be widespread and thus it is important that dental practitioners understand that, based on its differential mechanisms of action on different microbes, appropriate clinical and dental use of CHX should be oral disease specific. However, further scientific and clinical research is required before full recommendations can be made.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Dental Caries; Dentists; Humans; Mouthwashes; Professional Role
PubMed: 33075450
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103497 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Jan 2023Oral mucositis is a common and most debilitating complication associated with cancer therapy. Despite the significant clinical and economic impact of this condition,... (Review)
Review
Oral mucositis is a common and most debilitating complication associated with cancer therapy. Despite the significant clinical and economic impact of this condition, there is little to offer to patients with oral mucositis, and the medications used in its management are generally only palliative. Given that mucositis is ultimately a predictable and, therefore, potentially preventable condition, in this study we appraised the scientific literature to evaluate effective methods of prevention that have been tested in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Published high-level evidence shows that multiple preventative methods are potentially effective in the prevention of oral mucositis induced by radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both. Anti-inflammatory medications (including benzydamine), growth factors and cytokines (including palifermin), cryotherapy, laser-and-light therapy, herbal medicines and supplements, and mucoprotective agents (including oral pilocarpine) showed some degree of efficacy in preventing/reducing the severity of mucositis with most anticancer treatments. Allopurinol was potentially effective in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis; antimicrobial mouthwash and erythropoietin mouthwash were associated with a lower risk of development of severe oral mucositis induced by chemotherapy. The results of our review may assist in highlighting the efficacy and testing the effectiveness of low-cost, safe preventative measures for oral mucositis in cancer patients.
Topics: Humans; Mucositis; Mouthwashes; Stomatitis; Neoplasms; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36661723
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30010074 -
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry Jun 2022To summarise the available data on the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash in treating gingivitis during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To summarise the available data on the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash in treating gingivitis during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were searched up to December 7th, 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0). After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, differences were recorded in several oral hygiene indices in time and mean percentage change in those indices using different antimicrobial solutions.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, reporting on a total of 602 patients with an age range of 11-35 years. The experimental solution was a 0.06%, 0.12%, or 0.2% CHX mouthwash with the control either a placebo mouthwash or a selection from a variety of mouthwashes. Treatment duration varied from 1 day to almost 5 months and the follow-up period varied from 1 min to 5 months. Chlorhexidine mouthrinses led to reduced plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation during orthodontic treatment, while at the same time, some of the control group mouthrinses were deemed equally effective. No statistically significant difference was detected in the meta-analysis between CHX and mouthwashes with propolis/probiotics/herbs in terms of the gingival index at 3 to 4 weeks (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI: -0.18, 0.31, p = 0.59).
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine mouthwash in orthodontic patients successfully controls gingival inflammation and bleeding when compared to untreated controls, but is equally effective as other mouthrinses where various oral health indices are concerned.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Inflammation; Mouthwashes; Young Adult
PubMed: 35762364
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b3170043 -
Nursing Open May 2022The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate and zinc chloride mouthwashes on oral mucositis and quality of life in patients... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of sodium bicarbonate and zinc chloride mouthwashes on oral mucositis and quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy.
DESIGN
The present study was a randomized controlled trial study.
METHODS
One hundred forty-four patients with a cancer diagnosis were randomly assigned into three groups: sodium bicarbonate mouthwash (n = 48), zinc chloride mouthwash (n = 48) and placebo group (n = 48). The severity of mucositis and quality of life were examined blindly at the baseline and 3-week follow-up.
RESULTS
The grade of oral mucositis decreased at the end of the third weeks in the sodium bicarbonate and zinc chloride groups rather than the placebo group (p < .001). The severity of oral mucositis in the sodium bicarbonate and zinc chloride groups decreased from end of the first week until third week (p < .001). In addition, there was significant difference in the severity of oral mucositis among the groups at the end of the second (p = .014) and the third weeks (p < .001). Also, there was a statistically significant difference in quality of life scores between the sodium bicarbonate and zinc chloride mouthwash with the placebo group (p < .001).
CONCLUSION
Zinc chloride and sodium bicarbonate mouthwashes were effective in treating and reducing the severity of oral mucositis, and subsequently improving quality of life in patients with cancer under chemotherapy. Therefore, we can recommend zinc chloride and sodium bicarbonate at the beginning of chemotherapy to improve oral health and promoting quality of life in these patients.
Topics: Chlorides; Humans; Mouthwashes; Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Sodium Bicarbonate; Stomatitis; Zinc Compounds
PubMed: 35170247
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.1168 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Sep 2014Halitosis can be caused by oral disease or by respiratory tract conditions such as sinusitis, tonsillitis, and bronchiectasis, but an estimated 40% of affected...
INTRODUCTION
Halitosis can be caused by oral disease or by respiratory tract conditions such as sinusitis, tonsillitis, and bronchiectasis, but an estimated 40% of affected individuals have no underlying organic disease.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with physiological halitosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2013 (Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 11 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: artificial saliva; cleaning, brushing, or scraping the tongue; regular use of mouthwash; sugar-free chewing gums; and zinc toothpastes.
Topics: Chewing Gum; Halitosis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Saliva, Artificial; Tongue; Toothpastes
PubMed: 25234037
DOI: No ID Found -
International Dental Journal Nov 2023This narrative review summarises "alternative" or "natural" over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes not covered elsewhere in this supplement and newly emerging products, as... (Review)
Review
This narrative review summarises "alternative" or "natural" over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes not covered elsewhere in this supplement and newly emerging products, as potential mouthwashes of the future. The "natural" mouthwashes reviewed include saltwater, baking soda, coconut oil, charcoal, propolis, seaweeds, and probiotics. Other than essential oils, it is apparent that their clinical effectiveness is still under debate, but there is some evidence to suggest that propolis reduces plaque and gingivitis. This review also covers the host immune response, via novel anti-inmmunomodulant mouthwashes, such as erythropoietin to reduce inflammation with oral mucositis (OM) after radiotherapy. The emerging concept of nanoparticle-containing mouthwashes, such as iron oxide, is further discussed for OM, this agent having the potential for more targeted delivery of chemical antimicrobials. Unfortunately, there are impacts on the environment of widening mouthwash use with more new products, including increased use of packaging, antimicrobial resistance, and possible detrimental effects on marine life. Further, there are roadblocks, relating to regularly approvals and side effects, that still need to be overcome for any OTC deivered immunomodulant or nanoformulation mouthwashes. Despite these caveats, there are many new mouthwashes under development, which could help manage major oral diseases such as caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Propolis; Dental Plaque; Oils, Volatile; Gingivitis
PubMed: 37867066
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.011