-
Evidence-based Dentistry Mar 2022Design Systematic review.Case selection This study had a focused research format in terms of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). There were no age,... (Review)
Review
Design Systematic review.Case selection This study had a focused research format in terms of PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes). There were no age, gender or medical conditions which restricted or excluded patients from the inclusion criteria. The intervention was the use of alcohol-based mouthwashes in comparison to the control group where no mouthwash was used. A literature search was carried out utilising three electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library. The papers included for analysis within this review were all published from 2006 onwards and animal studies, case series and case reports were excluded.Data analysis The qualitative analysis included 43,499 participants from eight papers which included two meta-analyses, one clinical trial, three case-control studies and two cohort studies, all of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Data were analysed by two independent reviewers who initially screened the articles and removed duplications before a second round of in-depth evaluation was conducted. A third reviewer was also included to act impartially to resolve any disagreements and reduce bias within the study. Risk of bias within studies was assessed utilising the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) which provided a uniform approach between the reviewers. A score of 6 or greater was associated with a low level of bias.Results The primary outcome parameter measured was acetaldehyde levels in saliva and the secondary outcome factor was the risk of developing an oral cancer. The results from this review concluded that the relationship between the use of alcohol mouthwash and cancer risk is complex and influenced by multiple variables. Factors which may influence the risk of developing an oral cancer from the use of alcohol mouthwash include increased frequency of rinsing (more than three times daily), total duration of mouthwash use (>35 years), poor oral hygiene and presence of other risk factors (for example, smoking and alcohol intake).Conclusions The use of alcohol-containing mouthwashes alone (when no other risk factors are present) does not increase the risk of developing an oral cancer or lead to increased salivary acetaldehyde. However, where other risk factors for oral cancer are present, the use of an alcohol-based mouthwash may further increase this risk.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Ethanol; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Mouthwashes; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35338325
DOI: 10.1038/s41432-022-0236-0 -
Chlorhexidine mouthwash and sodium lauryl sulphate dentifrice: do they mix effectively or interfere?International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2016What is the effectiveness of a chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash used in combination with a sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) dentifrice on the parameters of plaque and... (Review)
Review
FOCUSED QUESTION
What is the effectiveness of a chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash used in combination with a sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) dentifrice on the parameters of plaque and gingivitis?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE and other electronic databases were searched up to July 2014. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials, subjects ≥18 years of age with good general health. Papers evaluating the effect of CHX mouthwash used in combination with SLS dentifrice or a dentifrice slurry compared with CHX mouthwash as a single oral hygiene intervention or in combination with an SLS-free dentifrice were included. From the eligible studies, data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was performed when feasible.
RESULTS
Independent screening of 83 unique papers resulted in four eligible publications, with nine comparisons. The meta-analysis showed that when an SLS dentifrice was used as a slurry rinse, the interference on the plaque-inhibiting effect of a CHX mouthwash was significantly decreased (MD 0.33; P ≤ 0.00001; 95% CI: <0.24; 0.42>). No significant difference was observed when SLS dentifrice was applied as a paste in combination with CHX mouthwash (MD 0.08; P = 0.42; 95% CI: <-0.26; 0.11>). Descriptive and subgroup analyses support these findings. Moreover, the observed effect for the dentifrice paste occurred regardless of the order of use.
CONCLUSION
This review demonstrates that when CHX mouthwash is recommended, it can be used in combination with an SLS dentifrice without any interference regarding its inhibiting effect on dental plaque, regardless of the order of use. Consequently, the collective evidence indicates that the combined use of dentifrice and CHX mouthwash is not contraindicated. However, this recommendation has been graded as moderate taking into account a potential publication bias because three of the four included studies emerged from the same research group.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Dentifrices; Drug Interactions; Humans; Mouthwashes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate
PubMed: 25880828
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12125 -
Journal of the American Dental... May 2017Through a systematic literature review, the authors evaluated the use of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical periodontal therapy for chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Through a systematic literature review, the authors evaluated the use of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical periodontal therapy for chronic periodontitis.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors performed a systematic search by using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Scientific Electronic Library Online, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The authors selected randomized controlled clinical trials in which the investigators evaluated the probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) in test groups by using CHX as an adjuvant and in control groups and subject to mechanical periodontal therapy (scaling and root planing [SRP] 4-6 visits or 24 hours).
RESULTS
The literature search resulted in 8 articles, which the authors then assessed for quality. After testing for heterogeneity, the authors performed a meta-analysis only in the SRP group with 4 to 6 visits. Results were positive for both PD and CAL with use of CHX. However, the summary measure was significant (P < .05) only for PD at 40 to 60 days (0.33 millimeters; 95% confidence interval, 0.08 to 0.58 mm) and 180 days (0.24 mm; 95% confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.47 mm) of follow-up, showing positive results for the use of CHX at those times. Although those differences were statistically significant, they could be interpreted as clinically slight.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Adjunctive use of CHX mouthrinse with mechanical SRP resulted in slightly greater PD reduction than did SRP alone. Clinicians must consider the small additional gain in PD reduction, negligible effect on CAL, and potential for tooth staining when using CHX as an adjunct to SRP in treating chronic periodontitis.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Chronic Periodontitis; Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Scaling; Humans; Mouthwashes; Root Planing
PubMed: 28284417
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.01.021 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology May 2023
Review
Topics: Mouthwashes; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Bibliometrics
PubMed: 36736713
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2023.116210 -
HDA Now 2011
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 21887868
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a short distance, with infected individuals releasing large amounts of aerosols when speaking and coughing. However, there is an open question regarding whether mouthwash could effectively reduce virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic and support the prevention of infection among medical workers.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception of each database to January 12, 2023 for currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of mouthwash on novel coronavirus load in the oral cavity in COVID-19 patients. The treatment group received mouthwash for rinsing the mouth, while the control group received a placebo or distilled water for COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were CT value and viral load. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to minimize the bias and the impact of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included. Seven studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the CT value of novel coronavirus. The analysis results showed that the mouthwash group had a positive impact on the CT value of novel coronavirus [ SMD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.21, 0.50)] compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed a significant positive effect of mouthwash on CT values in the treatment group compared with the control group, with chlorhexidine (CHX) [SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (0.10, 0.56)], povidone-iodine (PVP-I) [SMD = 0.61, 95% CI (0.23, 0.99)], or hydrogen peroxide (HP) [SMD = 1.04, 95% CI (0.30, 1.78)] as an ingredient of the mouthwash. Six studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the viral load, 263 cases in the treatment group and 164 cases in the control group. The analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference between the mouthwash group and the control group in the viral load of novel coronavirus [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.05)]. In the subgroup analysis by measurement time, there were statistically significant differences between the mouthwash and control groups for CT values [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.72)] and viral load [SMD = - 0.32, 95% CI (- 0.56, - 0.07)] within 30 min of gargling.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, mouthwash has some efficacy in reducing the viral load of novel coronavirus, especially within 30 min after rinsing the mouth. Mouthwash containing CHX, PVP-I and HP all had significant positive effects on CT values, and PVP-I-containing mouthwash may be a promising option to control novel coronavirus infections and relieve virus-related symptoms. However, studies on the dose and frequency of use of mouthwash for infection control are still lacking, which may limit the clinical application of mouthwash.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023401961).
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Povidone-Iodine; Viral Load; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Chlorhexidine; Hydrogen Peroxide
PubMed: 37821800
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08669-z -
Journal of the College of Physicians... Oct 2014The aim of the review was to critically appraise the various pros and cons of the synthetic and herbal agents used in mouthwashes against halitosis and facilitate users... (Review)
Review
The aim of the review was to critically appraise the various pros and cons of the synthetic and herbal agents used in mouthwashes against halitosis and facilitate users to choose appropriate mouthwashes according to their need. Oral Malodour (OMO) or halitosis is a global epidemic with social and psychological impact. Use of mouthwash has been adopted worldwide to control halitosis within a past few decades. Alcohol and Chlorhexidine are common agents in synthetic mouthwashes, while Tannins and Eugenol are derived traditional herbal extracts. Each agent signifies some unique properties distinguishing them from others. Herbal ingredients are gaining the attention of the profession due to its mild side effects and competitive results. Herbal mouthwashes can be a safer choice in combating OMO, as an alternate to synthetic mouthwashes.
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Eugenol; Halitosis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Tannins
PubMed: 25327922
DOI: 10.2014/JCPSP.757762 -
British Dental Journal Feb 2019
Topics: Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 30796376
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-019-0036-x -
British Dental Journal Jun 2020
Topics: Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine
PubMed: 32591671
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-1794-1 -
British Dental Journal Feb 2010
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Conflict of Interest; Drug Industry; Ethics, Dental; Humans; Mouth Neoplasms; Mouthwashes; Research
PubMed: 20147905
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.110