-
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 -
Toxics Nov 2023Guanidine disinfectants are important chemical agents with a broad spectrum of activity that are effective against most microorganisms. Chlorhexidine, one of the most...
Guanidine disinfectants are important chemical agents with a broad spectrum of activity that are effective against most microorganisms. Chlorhexidine, one of the most used guanidine disinfectants, is added to shampoo and mouthwash and applied in medical device sterilization. During the use of chlorhexidine, aerosols with micron particle size may be formed, which may cause inhalation toxicity. To assess the toxicity of inhaled chlorhexidine aerosol, mice underwent the intratracheal instillation of different concentrations of chlorhexidine (0, 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.5%, and 1%) using a MicroSprayer Aerosolizer. The mice were exposed for eight weeks and then sacrificed to obtain lung tissue for subsequent experiments. Histopathology staining revealed damaged lung tissues and increased collagen exudation. At the same time, pulmonary function tests showed that chlorhexidine exposure could cause restrictive ventilatory dysfunction, consistent with pulmonary fibrosis. The results of transcriptome analyses suggest that chlorhexidine may trigger an inflammatory response and promote the activation of pathways related to extracellular matrix deposition. Further, we identified that chlorhexidine exposure might enhance mucus secretion by up-regulating and genes, thereby inducing fibrosis-like injury. These findings underscore the need for standardized use of disinfectants and the assessment of their inhalation toxicity.
PubMed: 37999562
DOI: 10.3390/toxics11110910 -
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 -
JAMA Oncology Jul 2023Evidence-based approaches for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) are limited, and additional strategies are necessary to optimize care. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Evidence-based approaches for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) are limited, and additional strategies are necessary to optimize care.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy of bacterial decolonization (BD) to reduce ARD severity compared with standard of care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This phase 2/3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 2019 to August 2021 with investigator blinding at an urban academic cancer center and enrolled patients with breast cancer or head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy (RT) with curative intent. Analysis was performed on January 7, 2022.
INTERVENTIONS
Intranasal mupirocin ointment twice daily and chlorhexidine body cleanser once daily for 5 days prior to RT and repeated for 5 days every 2 weeks through RT.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome as planned prior to data collection was the development of grade 2 or higher ARD. Based on wide clinical variability of grade 2 ARD, this was refined to grade 2 ARD with moist desquamation (grade 2-MD).
RESULTS
Of 123 patients assessed for eligibility via convenience sampling, 3 were excluded, and 40 refused to participate, with 80 patients in our final volunteer sample. Of 77 patients with cancer (75 patients with breast cancer [97.4%] and 2 patients with head and neck cancer [2.6%]) who completed RT, 39 were randomly assigned BC, and 38 were randomly assigned standard of care; the mean (SD) age of the patients was 59.9 (11.9) years, and 75 (97.4%) were female. Most patients were Black (33.7% [n = 26]) or Hispanic (32.5% [n = 25]). Among patients with breast cancer and patients with head and neck cancer (N = 77), none of the 39 patients treated with BD and 9 of the 38 patients (23.7%) treated with standard of care developed ARD grade 2-MD or higher (P = .001). Similar results were observed among the 75 patients with breast cancer (ie, none treated with BD and 8 [21.6%] receiving standard of care developed ARD grade ≥2-MD; P = .002). The mean (SD) ARD grade was significantly lower for patients treated with BD (1.2 [0.7]) compared with patients receiving standard of care (1.6 [0.8]) (P = .02). Of the 39 patients randomly assigned to BD, 27 (69.2%) reported regimen adherence, and only 1 patient (2.5%) experienced an adverse event related to BD (ie, itch).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that BD is effective for ARD prophylaxis, specifically for patients with breast cancer.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03883828.
Topics: Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Male; Radiodermatitis; Chlorhexidine; Mupirocin; Breast Neoplasms; Head and Neck Neoplasms
PubMed: 37140904
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0444 -
JAMA Oct 2023Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included.
INTERVENTION
Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%.
RESULTS
Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Administration, Intranasal; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Baths; Chlorhexidine; Cross Infection; Intensive Care Units; Iodophors; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Mupirocin; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Sepsis; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus; United States
PubMed: 37815567
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.17219 -
International Dental Journal Nov 2023This is the concluding article in the supplement on the role of mouthwashes in oral care, which summarises the current guidelines across the globe regarding their... (Review)
Review
This is the concluding article in the supplement on the role of mouthwashes in oral care, which summarises the current guidelines across the globe regarding their acceptable adjunctive use for managing caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease. Based on moderate evidence for clinical effectiveness, most current guidelines suggest fluoride mouthwashes for the management of dental caries, and chlorhexidine for the management of periodontal diseases. However there still appears to be gaps in the literature underpinning these recommendations. Importantly, all evidence supports such mouthwash use "adjunctively," alongside mechanical oral hygiene measures. Other antimicrobial mouthwashes such as essential oils and cetylpyridinium chloride may also be clinically effective against plaque and gingivitis, but there is a current lack of robust evidence of natural mouthwashes to recommend their adjunctive use. The authors of the current review are of the view that mouthwashes may not be of much value in those with good periodontal health or low caries risk. The reasons for this are, the potential i) risks of allergic reactions, ii) dysbiosis of the oral microbiota, iii) emergence of antimicrobial resistance, and iv) deleterious effects on the environment. There is, however, much empirical research needed on mouthwashes, particularly in vivo research derived through clinical trials. Thus, dental practitioners need to keep abreast of the evidence base on the current, and the emerging, over-the-counter mouthwashes, and pay heed to the consensus views emanating from systematic reviews, as well as international guidelines on mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Dental Caries; Dentists; Professional Role; Chlorhexidine; Gingivitis; Periodontal Diseases; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local
PubMed: 37867062
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.013 -
International Dental Journal Apr 2024Mouthwashes, a cornerstone of oral and dental hygiene, play a pivotal role in combating the formation of dental plaque, a leading cause of periodontal disease and dental... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Mouthwashes, a cornerstone of oral and dental hygiene, play a pivotal role in combating the formation of dental plaque, a leading cause of periodontal disease and dental caries. This study aimed to review the composition of mouthwashes found on retail shelves in Turkey and evaluate their prevalence and side effects, if any.
METHODS
The mouthwashes examined were sourced from the 5 largest chain stores in each district of Istanbul. A comprehensive list of the constituents was meticulously recorded. The research was supported by an extensive compilation of references from scholarly databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. Through rigorous analysis, the relative proportions of mouthwash ingredients and components were determined.
RESULTS
A total of 45 distinctive variations of mouthwashes, representing 17 prominent brands, were identified. Amongst the 116 ingredients discovered, 70 were evaluated for potential adverse effects and undesirable side effects. The aroma of the mouthwash (n = 45; 100%), as welll as their sodium fluoride (n = 28; 62.22%), sodium saccharin (n = 29; 64.44%), sorbitol (n = 21; 46.6%), and propylene glycol (n = 28; 62.22%) content were the main undesireable features.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited array of mouthwashes found on store shelves poses a concern for both oral and public health. Furthermore, the intricate composition of these products, consisting of numerous ingredients with the potential for adverse effects, warrants serious attention. Both clinicians and patients should acknowledge the importance and unwarranted side effects of the compnents of the mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Mouthwashes; Sodium Fluoride
PubMed: 37709645
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.08.004 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... Jun 2023Antiseptic bathing did not reduce central-line (CL) associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICU) according to a recent cluster... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Central-line associated bloodstream infections in intensive care units before and after implementation of daily antiseptic bathing with chlorhexidine or octenidine: a post-hoc analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUNDS
Antiseptic bathing did not reduce central-line (CL) associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates in intensive care units (ICU) according to a recent cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT). However, this analysis did not consider baseline infection rates. Our post-hoc analysis of this cRCT aimed to use a before-after comparison to examine the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine, octenidine or water and soap (control) on ICU-attributable CLABSI rates.
METHODS
A post-hoc analysis of a multi-center cRCT was done. ICUs that did not yet perform routine antiseptic bathing were randomly assigned to one of three study groups applying daily bathing with 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths, 0.08% octenidine wash mitts or water and soap (control) for 12 months. Baseline data was assessed 12 months before the intervention started when all ICUs routinely used water and soap. Poisson regression and generalised estimating equation models were applied to identify changes of CLABSI rates per 1000 CL days between intervention and baseline periods in each study group.
RESULTS
The cRCT was conducted in 72 ICUs (24 per study group) including 76,139 patients in the baseline and 76,815 patients in the intervention period. In the chlorhexidine group, incidence density of CLABSI was reduced from 1.48 to 0.90 CLABSI per 1000 CL days comparing baseline versus intervention period (P = 0.0085). No reduction was observed in the octenidine group (1.26 versus 1.47 CLABSI per 1000 CL days, P = 0.8735) and the control group (1.20 versus 1.17, P = 0.3298). Adjusted incidence rate ratios (intervention versus baseline) were 0.63 (95%CI 0.46-0.87, P = 0.0172) in the chlorhexidine, 1.17 (95% CI 0.79-1.72, P = 0.5111) in the octenidine and 0.98 (95% CI 0.60-1.58, P = 0.9190) in the control group. Chlorhexidine bathing reduced CLABSI with gram-positive bacteria, mainly coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS).
CONCLUSIONS
In this post-hoc analysis of a cRCT, the application of 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths reduced ICU-attributable CLABSI. This preventive effect of chlorhexidine was restricted to CLABSI caused by gram-positive pathogens (CoNS). In contrast, 0.08% octenidine wash mitts did not reduce CLABSI rates in ICUs. Trial registration Registration number DRKS00010475, registration date August 18, 2016.
Topics: Humans; Chlorhexidine; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Soaps; Cross Infection; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 37270604
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-023-01260-w