-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alveolar osteitis (dry socket) is a complication of dental extractions more often involving mandibular molar teeth. It is associated with severe pain developing 2 to 3 days postoperatively with or without halitosis, a socket that may be partially or totally devoid of a blood clot, and increased postoperative visits. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of local interventions used for the prevention and treatment of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) following tooth extraction.
SEARCH METHODS
An Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 28 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults over 18 years of age who were having permanent teeth extracted or who had developed dry socket postextraction. We included studies with any type of local intervention used for the prevention or treatment of dry socket, compared to a different local intervention, placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies reporting on systemic use of antibiotics or the use of surgical techniques because these interventions are evaluated in separate Cochrane Reviews.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We followed Cochrane statistical guidelines and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For some of the split-mouth studies with sparse data, it was not possible to calculate RR so we calculated the exact odds ratio (OR) instead. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the body of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 49 trials with 6771 participants; 39 trials (with 6219 participants) investigated prevention of dry socket and 10 studies (with 552 participants) looked at the treatment of dry socket. 16 studies were at high risk of bias, 30 studies at unclear risk of bias, and 3 studies at low risk of bias. Chlorhexidine in the prevention of dry socket When compared to placebo, rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinses (0.12% and 0.2% concentrations) both before and 24 hours after extraction(s) substantially reduced the risk of developing dry socket with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; P < 0.00001; 6 trials, 1547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The prevalence of dry socket varies from 1% to 5% in routine dental extractions to upwards of 30% in surgically extracted third molars. The number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) with chlorhexidine rinse to prevent one patient having dry socket was 162 (95% CI 155 to 240), 33 (95% CI 27 to 49), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 10) for control prevalence of dry socket 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to placebo, placing chlorhexidine gel intrasocket after extractions reduced the odds of developing a dry socket by 58% with an OR of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.71; P = 0.0008; 7 trials, 753 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The NNT with chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) to prevent one patient developing dry socket was 180 (95% CI 137 to 347), 37 (95% CI 28 to 72), and 7 (95% CI 5 to 15) for control prevalence of dry socket of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.30 respectively. Compared to chlorhexidine rinse (0.12%), placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) intrasocket after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of dry socket (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; P = 0.22; 2 trials, 383 participants; low-certainty evidence). The present review found some evidence for the association of minor adverse reactions with use of 0.12%, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinses (alteration in taste, staining of teeth, stomatitis) though most studies were not designed explicitly to detect the presence of hypersensitivity reactions to mouthwash as part of the study protocol. No adverse events were reported in relation to the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed directly into a socket. Platelet rich plasma in the prevention of dry socket Compared to placebo, placing platelet rich plasma after extractions was not superior in reducing the risk of having a dry socket (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33; P = 0.17; 2 studies, 127 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A further 21 intrasocket interventions to prevent dry socket were each evaluated in single studies, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects. Zinc oxide eugenol versus Alvogyl in the treatment of dry socket Two studies, with 80 participants, showed that Alvogyl (old formulation) is more effective than zinc oxide eugenol at reducing pain at day 7 (mean difference (MD) -1.40, 95% CI -1.75 to -1.04; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) A further nine interventions for the treatment of dry socket were evaluated in single studies, providing insufficient evidence to determine their effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tooth extractions are generally undertaken by dentists for a variety of reasons, however, all but five studies included in the present review included participants undergoing extraction of third molars, most of which were undertaken by oral surgeons. There is moderate-certainty evidence that rinsing with chlorhexidine (0.12% and 0.2%) or placing chlorhexidine gel (0.2%) in the sockets of extracted teeth, probably results in a reduction in dry socket. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of the other 21 preventative interventions each evaluated in single studies. There was limited evidence of very low certainty that Alvogyl (old formulation) may reduce pain at day 7 in patients with dry socket when compared to zinc oxide eugenol.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlorhexidine; Dry Socket; Eugenol; Humans; Mouthwashes; Pain; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 36156769
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006968.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2019Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world population has experienced this problem which can lead to social stigma and loss of self-confidence. Multiple interventions have been tried to control halitosis ranging from mouthwashes and toothpastes to lasers. This new Cochrane Review incorporates Cochrane Reviews previously published on tongue scraping and mouthrinses for halitosis.
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.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Chewing Gum; Chlorhexidine; Dental Scaling; Female; Halitosis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tongue; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes; Young Adult
PubMed: 31825092
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012213.pub2 -
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 -
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Jul 2020Antimicrobial resistance is a serious issue for public health care all over the world. While resistance toward antibiotics has attracted strong interest among... (Review)
Review
Antimicrobial resistance is a serious issue for public health care all over the world. While resistance toward antibiotics has attracted strong interest among researchers and the general public over the last 2 decades, the directly related problem of resistance toward antiseptics and biocides has been somewhat left untended. In the field of dentistry, antiseptics are routinely used in professional care, but they are also included in lots of oral care products such as mouthwashes or dentifrices, which are easily available for consumers over-the-counter. Despite this fact, there is little awareness among the dental community about potential risks of the widespread, unreflected, and potentially even needless use of antiseptics in oral care. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), a quaternary ammonium compound, which was first described in 1939, is one of the most commonly used antiseptics in oral care products and included in a wide range of over-the-counter products such as mouthwashes and dentifrices. The aim of the present review is to summarize the current literature on CPC, particularly focusing on its mechanism of action, its antimicrobial efficacy toward biofilms, and on potential risks of resistance toward this antiseptic as well as underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, this work aims to raise awareness among the dental community about the risk of resistance toward antiseptics in general.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Biofilms; Cetylpyridinium; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 32513792
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00576-20 -
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