-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Baths; Chlorhexidine; Disinfection; Female; Humans; Male; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Soaps; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25927093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004985.pub5 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2022The present study aimed to establish the efficacy of sodium hypochlorite mouthwash (NaOCl-MW) compared with a control mouthwash on plaque and clinical parameters of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The present study aimed to establish the efficacy of sodium hypochlorite mouthwash (NaOCl-MW) compared with a control mouthwash on plaque and clinical parameters of periodontal disease.
METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched for clinical trials on patients with gingivitis or periodontitis that assessed the effect of NaOCl-MW in comparison with a negative or positive control on plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding index (BI) scores and probing pocket depth (PPD). Data were extracted from the eligible studies.
RESULTS
Seven eligible papers were retrieved, which together represented six clinical trials. The studies showed considerable heterogeneity regarding methodological and clinical aspects that did not permit a meta-analysis. Two of the three studies in which NaOCl-MW was compared with a negative control showed that NaOCl-MW significantly reduced PI, GI and BI, and no effect was found on PPD. In three studies, NaOCl-MW was assessed using chlorhexidine mouthwash (CHX-MW) as a positive control; no difference was found for GI and BI. One of the three comparisons showed a statistically significant PI score favouring NaOCl-MW. One study measured PPD and found it to be significant in favour of NaOCl-MW.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies with a negative control group provided very weak quality evidence for a very small beneficial effect of NaOCl-MW on PI, GI and BI scores. Studies with a positive control group provided very weak quality evidence that NaOCl-MW had a similar effect as CHX-MW on PI, GI and BI scores. The outcome for PPD was inconclusive.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Periodontal Diseases; Sodium Hypochlorite
PubMed: 33971082
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12510 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2022The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence regarding the efficacy of curcumin mouthwashes on plaque and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence regarding the efficacy of curcumin mouthwashes on plaque and gingivitis.
METHODS
A comprehensive online search of multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) was performed to identify all relevant studies published up to August 2020, using the following keywords: curcumin, turmeric, gingivitis, periodontal health, and plaque control. All clinical trials that compared the efficacy of curcumin mouthwash with chlorhexidine in controlling dental plaque and gingivitis were included. Data were analysed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. The risk of bias was evaluated by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane assessment tool.
RESULTS
Six randomized clinical trials (comprising 320 subjects) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Five studies showed a high risk of bias and only one study showed a low risk of bias. The pooled data of the six included studies revealed comparable efficacy of curcumin and chlorhexidine in reducing dental plaque (I = 91%; standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.27, 95% CI: -0.53, 1.07, p = 0. 51) and gingival inflammation (I = 40%; SMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.35, 0.09, p = 0.24), with no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that curcumin mouthwashes have promising anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis properties. Further clinical trials with adequate sample sizes and standardized methodologies are required to discern the efficacy of curcumin mouthwash in reducing plaque and gingivitis.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Curcumin; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 34013606
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12518 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Aug 2022Carbohydrates are an important fuel for optimal exercise performance during moderate- and high-intensity exercise; however, carbohydrate ingestion during high-intensity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Carbohydrates are an important fuel for optimal exercise performance during moderate- and high-intensity exercise; however, carbohydrate ingestion during high-intensity exercise may cause gastrointestinal upset. A carbohydrate oral rinse is an alternative method to improve exercise performance in moderate- to high-intensity exercise with a duration of 30-75 min. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively examine the isolated effect of maltodextrin-based rinsing on exercise performance.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to establish the effect of a maltodextrin-based carbohydrate oral rinse on exercise performance across various modes of exercise. Furthermore, a secondary objective was to determine the effects of moderators [(1) participant characteristics; (2) oral rinse protocols; (3) exercise protocol (i.e. cycling, running etc.) and (4) fasting] on exercise performance while using a maltodextrin-based, carbohydrate oral rinse.
METHODS
Five databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, SPORTDiscus and Global Health) were systematically searched for articles up to March 2021 and screened using Covidence (a systematic review management tool). A random effects robust meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed using Stata Statistical Software: Release 16.
RESULTS
Thirty-five articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review; 34 of these articles were included in the meta-analysis. When using a conventional meta-analytic approach, overall, a carbohydrate oral rinse improved exercise performance in comparison with a placebo (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.04, 0.27; p = 0.01). Furthermore, when implementing an adjusted, conservative, random effects meta-regression model using robust variance estimation, overall, compared with placebo, a carbohydrate oral rinse demonstrated evidence of improving exercise performance with a small effect size (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI - 0.01, 0.34; p = 0.051).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that a maltodextrin-based carbohydrate oral rinse can improve exercise performance. When comparing the two meta-analytic approaches, although non-significant, the more robust, adjusted, random effects meta-regression model demonstrated some evidence of a maltodextrin-based carbohydrate oral rinse improving exercise performance overall.
Topics: Bicycling; Exercise; Humans; Mouthwashes; Polysaccharides
PubMed: 35239154
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01658-3 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Aug 2011To review the literature concerning hexetidine-containing mouthwash as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to oral hygiene in the prevention of plaque accumulation and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature concerning hexetidine-containing mouthwash as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to oral hygiene in the prevention of plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PubMed-MEDLINE and the Cochrane-CENTRAL were searched through January 2010 to identify appropriate studies. The primary outcome measurements were plaque accumulation and gingivitis parameters.
RESULTS
Independent screening of titles and abstracts of 168 papers resulted in six publications that met the eligibility criteria. Mean values and standard deviations were obtained by data extraction. Descriptive comparisons are presented for hexetidine mouthwash and control mouthwashes (chlorhexidine and placebo).
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the potential benefits in the light of the observed side effects, hexetidine appears to be a poor alternative to chlorhexidine.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Gingival Hemorrhage; Gingivitis; Hexetidine; Humans; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 21356020
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2010.00478.x -
Quintessence International (Berlin,... 2017To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthwashes on the reduction of cariogenic bacteria on patients with moderate to high risk for dental caries. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthwashes on the reduction of cariogenic bacteria on patients with moderate to high risk for dental caries.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of the literature was performed using Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The search was limited to articles in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, published until January 2017. The research question was formulated following the PICO strategy. The risk of bias was evaluated using the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
CONCLUSION
All the authors found statistically significant differences in Streptococcus mutans levels during and after the use of a chlorhexidine mouthwash. Although the results are suggestive, there is a clear need for the development of new studies with higher quality and with longer follow-ups, in order to assess whether the results translate into less development of dental caries and, consequently, whether or not these products should be incorporated into prevention protocols.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Dental Caries; Humans; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 28555200
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a38353 -
Molecular Oral Microbiology Jun 2023COVID-19 is a transmissible respiratory and multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Viral transmission occurs mainly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 is a transmissible respiratory and multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Viral transmission occurs mainly through the spread of salivary droplets or aerosol from an infected subject. Studies suggest that salivary viral load is correlated with disease severity and probability of transmission. Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash has been found to be effective in reducing salivary viral load. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials is to evaluate the efficacy of the mouthwash ingredient cetylpyridinium chloride on salivary viral load in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash with placebo and other mouthwash ingredients in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were identified and evaluated.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 301 patients that met the inclusion criteria were included. The studies reported the efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwashes in reduction on SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load compared to placebo and other mouthwash ingredients.
CONCLUSION
Mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride are effective against salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in vivo. There is also the possibility that the use of mouthwash containing cetylpyridinium chloride in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects could reduce transmissibility and severity of COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; Cetylpyridinium; Mouthwashes; SARS-CoV-2; Chlorides; Dental Plaque; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36808889
DOI: 10.1111/omi.12408 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2023The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load reduction in the oral cavity.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant studies up to 20 July, 2022. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trial and quasi-experimental studies evaluating patients with Covid-19 infection (patients) who used mouthwashes (intervention) compared to the same patients before using the mouthwash (comparison) for reducing the SARS-COV-2 load or increasing the cycle threshold (Ct) value (outcome) were searched according to PICO components. Three independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model in the Revman 5.4.1software using the mean difference (MD) of cycle threshold (Ct) values.
RESULTS
Of 1653 articles, 9 with a high methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis indicated that 1% Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was an effective mouthwash for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load [MD 3.61 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.19)]. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) [MD 0.61 (95% confidence interval -1.03, 2.25)] and Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) [MD -0.04 95% confidence interval (-1.20, 1.12)] were not effective against SARS-COV-2.
CONCLUSION
Using mouthwashes containing PVP-I may be recommended for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load in the oral cavity of patients before and during dental procedures, while the evidence is not sufficient for such effects for CPC and CHX-containing mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Load; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37400836
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03126-4 -
Sao Paulo Medical Journal = Revista... 2022Maintenance of oral microbiota balance is the simplest way to prevent infectious oral diseases, through controlling dental biofilm. Combined use of mouthwash and...
BACKGROUND
Maintenance of oral microbiota balance is the simplest way to prevent infectious oral diseases, through controlling dental biofilm. Combined use of mouthwash and mechanical removal has been shown to be a very effective way for this.
OBJECTIVES
To identify clinical studies comparing the antimicrobial effect and possible adverse effects and/or side effects of chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes with those of mouthwashes containing chlorine dioxide and/or polyhexanide, for controlling oral microbiota.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic review designed by the stomatology sector of postgraduation in applied dental sciences of Bauru Dentistry School, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Science Direct) up to April 8, 2020. The search was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
RESULTS
The studies included comprised eight articles published between 2001 and 2017. A total of 295 young adults, adults and elderly people were evaluated (males 44.75% and females 55.25%). Three articles compared polyhexanide with chlorhexidine and five articles compared chlorine dioxide with chlorhexidine. No studies comparing all three mouthwashes were found. The concentrations of the study solutions were quite varied, and all rinses had an antimicrobial effect. In four studies, it was stated that no side effects or adverse effects had been found. Three studies did not address these results and only one study addressed side effects and/or adverse effects.
CONCLUSION
Mouthwashes containing chlorine dioxide and polyhexanide are viable alternatives to chlorhexidine, since they reduce oral biofilm and have little or no reported side or adverse effects.
Topics: Aged; Biguanides; Chlorhexidine; Chlorine Compounds; Female; Humans; Male; Oxides; Young Adult
PubMed: 34932779
DOI: 10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0776.R1.18052021 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2024A meta-analytic review was performed to critically synthesize the evidence of oil pulling on improving the parameters of gingival health, plaque control and bacteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
A meta-analytic review was performed to critically synthesize the evidence of oil pulling on improving the parameters of gingival health, plaque control and bacteria counts against chlorhexidine and other mouthwash or oral hygiene practices.
METHODS
Databases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta-analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse-variance random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty-one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non-chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta-analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non-chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = -1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31, -0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a probable benefit of oil pulling in improving gingival health. Chlorhexidine remained superior in reducing the amount of plaque, compared to oil pulling. However, there was very low certainty in the evidence albeit the clinically beneficial effect of oil pulling intervention.
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; Chlorhexidine; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Dental Plaque; Oils
PubMed: 37635453
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12725