A prospective clinical pilot study on the effects of a hydrogen peroxide mouthrinse on the intraoral viral load of SARS-CoV-2

Electrolyzed Saline Prevents Virus Transmission in Dental Procedures: An In Vitro Study

In dentistry, disinfection with antimicrobials is employed under different conditions and at different time points. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of disinfectant dental sprays was proposed, among other measures, to help prevent the transmission of infections during dental procedures that require highly effective antiseptics at particularly short contact times. The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of electrolyzed saline (EOS) compared with other antiseptics in terms of the spread of enveloped and nonenveloped viruses by ultrasonic scaler (USS)-generated dental spray. Suspension tests were performed to evaluate the antiviral efficacy of EOS against herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) and human adenovirus (HAdV), which served as models for enveloped and nonenveloped viruses, respectively. EOS, mostly composed of hypochlorous acid (HOCl), reduced the amount of both virus types in the presence or absence of artificial saliva by > 4 log10 50% tissue culture infectious dose (P < 0.001). In addition, the mechanism of virucidal effect was investigated using transmission electron microscopy. Following this assessment, a virus-laden dental spray transmission model was used to simulate virus-infected patients undergoing dental procedures with USS. Attenuation was achieved by substituting the USS coolant with one of the effective, pretested antiseptics. Due to safety concerns, nonhuman viral pathogens-equine arteritis virus (EAV) and feline calicivirus (FCV)-served as enveloped and nonenveloped virus models, respectively. Viral infection was evaluated by direct droplet/aerosol infection of RK-13 or CRFK cells. In addition, the biocompatibility of the antiseptics was tested with exposure to human oral keratinocytes. EOS demonstrated strong virucidal activity against both enveloped and nonenveloped viruses and was able to absolutely prevent airborne transmission of EAV and FCV through dental spray in the splatter and droplet/aerosol samples. The study emphasized that EOS, a chlorine-based antiseptic, is a promising, reasonably safe, broad-spectrum agent for preventing dental spray-mediated viral transmission.

Antiseptics: An expeditious third force in the prevention and management of coronavirus diseases

Notably, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have all had significant negative impact on global health and economy. COVID-19 alone, has resulted to millions of deaths with new cases and mortality still being reported in its various waves. The development and use of vaccines have not stopped the transmission of SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent of COVID-19, even among vaccinated individuals. The use of vaccines and curative drugs should be supplemented with adoption of simple hygiene preventive measures in the fight against the spread of the virus, especially for healthcare workers. Several virucidal topical antiseptics, such as povidone-iodine (PVP-I), citrox, cyclodextrins among others, have been demonstrated to be efficacious in the inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in both in vitro and in vivo studies. The strategic application of these virucidal formulations could provide the additional impetus needed to effectively control the spread of the virus. We have here presented a simple dimension towards curtailing the dissemination of COVID-19, and other coronaviruses, through the application of effective oral, nasal and eye antiseptics among patients and medical personnel. We have further discussed the mechanism of action of some of these commonly available virucidal solutions while also highlighting some essential controversies in their use.

Scalable Cathodic H2O2 Electrosynthesis using Cobalt-Coordinated Nanocellulose Electrocatalyst

Converting hierarchical biomass structure into cutting-edge architecture of electrocatalysts can effectively relieve the extreme dependency of nonrenewable fossil-fuel-resources typically suffering from low cost-effectiveness, scarce supplies, and adverse environmental impacts. A cost-effective cobalt-coordinated nanocellulose (CNF) strategy is reported for realizing a high-performance 2e-ORR electrocatalysts through molecular engineering of hybrid ZIFs-CNF architecture. By a coordination and pyrolysis process, it generates substantial oxygen-capturing active sites within the typically oxygen-insulating cellulose, promoting O2 mass and electron transfer efficiency along the nanostructured Co3O4 anchored with CNF-based biochar. The Co-CNF electrocatalyst exhibits an exceptional H2O2 electrosynthesis efficiency of ≈510.58 mg L-1 cm-2 h-1 with an exceptional superiority over the existing biochar-, or fossil-fuel-derived electrocatalysts. The combination of the electrocatalysts with stainless steel mesh serving as a dual cathode can strongly decompose regular organic pollutants (up to 99.43% removal efficiency by 30 min), showing to be a desirable approach for clean environmental remediation with sustainability, ecological safety, and high-performance.

The effects of mouth rinsing and gargling with mouthwash containing povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide on the cycle threshold value of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A randomized controlled trial of asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 can spread rapidly. Surgery in the oral cavity poses a high risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend the use of mouthwash containing 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (H 2O 2) or 0.2% povidone iodine (PI) to reduce the viral load in the upper respiratory tract and decrease the risk of transmission. The aim of the present study was to analyze the effect of mouth rinsing and gargling with mouthwash containing 1% PI, 0.5% PI, 3% H 2O 2, or 1.5% H 2O 2 and water on the cycle threshold (CT) value obtained by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).

Methods

This study is a randomized single blind controlled clinical trial which has been registered in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry on the 3 rd February 2022 (Registration number: ISRCTN18356379). In total, 69 subjects recruited from Persahabatan General Hospital who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups or the control group. The subjects were instructed to gargle with 15 mL of mouthwash for 30 s in the oral cavity followed by 30 s in the back of the throat, three times per day for 5 days. CT values were collected on postprocedural days 1, 3, and 5.

Results

The results of the Friedman test significantly differed among the groups (n=15). The CT values increased from baseline (day 0) to postprocedural days 1, 3, and 5.

Conclusions

Mouth rinsing and gargling with mouthwash containing 1% PI, 0.5% PI, 3% H 2O 2, or 1.5% H 2O 2 and water increased the CT value.

Effect of 1% H2O2 on Three Salivary Stress Biomarkers, Cortisol, Alpha-Amylase, and sIgA

BACKGROUND

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several associations worldwide have been recommending the use of 1% hydrogen peroxide solution as a preprocedural mouth rinse before dental treatments to reduce viral load in saliva. This protocol is also employed in stress studies, especially in the context of dental treatment that uses salivary biomarkers as an indicator. However, the effect of 1% hydrogen peroxide as mouth rinse on salivary biomarkers remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the effects of 1% hydrogen peroxide solution as a preprocedural mouth rinse on 3 salivary stress biomarkers-salivary cortisol, salivary secretory IgA, and salivary α-amylase-both on chemical influence and mechanical irrigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety healthy participants with confirmed negative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction results for COVID-19 at most 2 days prior to the experiment were included in this study. All participants were randomly allocated into 3 groups: experimental (1% hydrogen peroxide solution), positive control (distilled water), and negative control (no mouth rinse). Saliva samples were collected before and after mouth rinsing with the respective solutions. Salivary biomarkers were analysed using specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits.

RESULTS

Salivary cortisol and salivary α-amylase did not significantly differ before and after rinsing, whilst salivary sIgA levels decreased in all 3 groups. Nonetheless, there were no significant differences in the changes of these biomarkers across the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that using 1% hydrogen peroxide solution as a preprocedural mouth rinse for universal precaution does not alter the levels of these 3 salivary biomarkers.

Effects of different antiviral mouthwashes on the surface roughness, hardness, and color stability of composite CAD/CAM materials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of COVID-19 preventive mouthwashes on the surface hardness, surface roughness (Ra), and color change (ΔE) of three different polymer-based composite CAD/CAM materials (Vita Enamic (ENA), Grandio Block (GB), Lava Ultimate (LU)).

METHODS

A total of 100 rectangular-shaped specimens with dimensions of 2 mm × 7 mm × 12 mm were obtained by sectioning three different CAD/CAM blocks and randomly divided into five subgroups according to the 30 days of mouthwash immersion protocol as follows: Control: artificial saliva, PVP-I: 1% povidone-iodine, HP: 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, CPC: mouthwash containing 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride, EO: mouthwash containing essential oils. Microhardness, Ra, and ΔE values were measured at baseline and after 30 days of immersion protocols. Data were analyzed using the Wald Chi-square, two-way ANOVA, and post hoc Tukey tests.

RESULTS

The independent factors (materials and solutions) significantly influenced the microhardness and color (p < 0.001). Ra of the materials was not affected by any of the mouthwashes (p > 0.05). The microhardness and color of each material varied significantly after immersion in PvP-I and HP (p < 0.05). The highest percentage change in microhardness, Ra, and ΔE was found in LU immersed in PvP-I and HP mouthwashes, while the lowest change was found in ENA groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, it was found that the surface hardness and color of tested polymer-based composite CAD/CAM materials are susceptible to degradation and change after 30 days of immersion in 1% PvP-I and 1.5% HP mouthwashes.

Efficacy of different mouthwashes against COVID-19: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of antiseptic mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load clinically and in vitro. A systematic electronic search (MEDLINE/Scopus/Cochrane) was conducted to identify prospective clinical and in vitro studies published between 2019 included and 16 June 2023 assessing the effectiveness of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva or surrogates. Data were summarized in tables and a network meta-analysis was performed for clinical trials. Thirty-five studies (14 RCTs, 21 in vitro) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was judged to be high for 2 clinical and 7 in vitro studies. The most commonly test product was chlorhexidine alone or in combination with other active ingredients, followed by povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide and cetylpyridinium chloride. Overall, the descriptive analysis revealed the effectiveness of the mouthwashes in decreasing the salivary viral load both clinically and in vitro. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Among these studies, only chlorhexidine 0.20% was associated to a significant Ct increase in the saliva 5 min after rinsing compared to non-active control (p = 0.027). Data from clinical and in vitro studies suggested the antiviral efficacy of commonly used mouthwashes. Large well-balanced trials are needed to identify the best rinsing protocols.

Revisiting Oral Antiseptics, Microorganism Targets and Effectiveness

A good oral health status is mostly dependent on good oral hygiene habits, which knowingly impacts systemic health. Although controversial, chemical oral antiseptics can be useful in adjunct use to mechanical dental plaque control techniques in the prevention and management of local and overall health and well-being. This review aims to revisit, gather and update evidence-based clinical indications for the use of the most popular oral antiseptics, considering different types, microorganism targets and effectiveness in order to establish updated clinical recommendations.

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load in Human Saliva to Oropharyngeal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Sputum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in human saliva and compared it with the loads in oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum. In addition, the salivary viral loads of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients were compared. Searches were conducted using four electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for studies published on SARS-CoV-2 loads expressed by CT values or copies/mL RNA. Three reviewers evaluated the included studies to confirm eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. A total of 37 studies were included. Mean CT values in saliva ranged from 21.5 to 39.6 and mean copies/mL RNA ranged from 1.91 × 101 to 6.98 × 1011. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva compared to oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum. In addition, no significant differences were observed in the salivary viral load of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. We conclude that saliva specimen can be used as an alternative for SARS-CoV-2 detection in oropharyngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, and sputum.

Do Disinfectant Solutions during Gargling Reach the Pharynx?

INTRODUCTION

In times of COVID-19, gargling disinfectant is commonly used. Disinfectant solutions seem to decrease the infection's symptoms. For disinfection, several techniques are reported. So far, there are no data about the regions in the upper airways achieved by gargled fluid.

METHODS

Ten healthy volunteers without any dysphagia were investigated with a high-sensitivity flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (hsFEES®) during and after gargling colored water. One volunteer repeated the gargling process in fast and real-time MRI.

RESULTS

In all cases, no color accumulation was detected on the posterior pharyngeal wall, epi- or hypopharynx during gargling. The MRI scans confirmed the results.

CONCLUSIONS

hsFEES® and fast MRI provide an insight into the gargling pattern. Data show that during gargling, the fluid covers the soft tissue in the oral cavity and the anterior part of the soft palate, but not the posterior pharyngeal wall nor the epi- and hypopharynx.

Efficacy of three antimicrobial mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of hospitalized patients: a randomized controlled pilot study

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of 3 mouthwashes in reducing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in the saliva of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients at 30 min, 1, 2 and 3 h after rinsing. This pilot study included 40 admitted COVID-19 positive patients (10 in each group). Saliva samples were collected before rinsing and at 30 min, 1, 2 and 3 h after rinsing with: Group 1-0.2% Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX); Group 2-1.5% Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2); Group 3-Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) or Group 4 (control group)-No rinsing. Viral load analysis of saliva samples was assessed by Reverse Transcription quantitative PCR. Mean log10 viral load at different time points was compared to that at baseline in all groups using a random effects linear regression analysis while for comparison between groups linear regression analysis was used. The results showed that all groups had a significantly reduced mean log10 viral load both at 2 (p = 0.036) and 3 (p = 0.041) hours compared to baseline. However, there was no difference in mean log10 viral load between any of the investigated mouthwashes and the control group (non-rinsing) at the evaluated time points. Although a reduction in the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients was observed after rinsing with mouthwashes containing 0.2% CHX, 1.5% H2O2, or CPC, the reduction detected was similar to that achieved by the control group at the investigated time points. The findings of this study may suggest that the mechanical action of rinsing/spitting results in reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary load.

Effect of Mouthwashes for COVID-19 Prevention on Surface Changes of Resin Composites

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this research was to investigate the effect of various mouthwashes for COVID-19 prevention on surface hardness, roughness, and colour changes of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites and determine the pH and titratable acidity of mouthwashes.

METHODS

Four hundred eighty specimens were fabricated in cylindrical moulds (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness). Before immersion, baseline data of surface hardness, roughness, and colour values were recorded. Each product of specimens (Filtek Z350XT, Premise, Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative, SonicFil 2) were divided into 4 groups for 0.2% povidone iodine, 1% hydrogen peroxide, 0.12% chlorhexidine, and deionised water (serving as a control). The specimens were immersed in mouthwashes for 1 minute and then stored in artificial saliva until 24 hours. This process was repeated for 14 days. After immersion, surface hardness, roughness, and colour values of specimens were measured at 7 and 14 days. The data were statistically analysed by 2-way repeated analysis of variance, Tukey honestly significant difference, and t test (P < .05).

RESULTS

After immersion, all mouthwashes caused significantly lower surface hardness and greater roughness and colour values (P < .05) on all resin composites tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Mouthwashes had an effect on all resin composites evaluated leading to a significant decreased surface hardness and an increased roughness and colour values (P < .05).

Effectiveness of mouthwashes on reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in oral cavity: a systematic review and 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.

Saline nasal irrigation and gargling in COVID-19: a multidisciplinary review of effects on viral load, mucosal dynamics, and patient outcomes

With unrelenting SARS-CoV-2 variants, additional COVID-19 mitigation strategies are needed. Oral and nasal saline irrigation (SI) is a traditional approach for respiratory infections/diseases. As a multidisciplinary network with expertise/experience with saline, we conducted a narrative review to examine mechanisms of action and clinical outcomes associated with nasal SI, gargling, spray, or nebulization in COVID-19. SI was found to reduce SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal loads and hasten viral clearance. Other mechanisms may involve inhibition of viral replication, bioaerosol reduction, improved mucociliary clearance, modulation of ENaC, and neutrophil responses. Prophylaxis was documented adjunctive to personal protective equipment. COVID-19 patients experienced significant symptom relief, while overall data suggest lower hospitalization risk. We found no harm and hence recommend SI use, as safe, inexpensive, and easy-to-use hygiene measure, complementary to hand washing or mask-wearing. In view of mainly small studies, large well-controlled or surveillance studies can help to further validate the outcomes and to implement its use.

Preprocedural Viral Load Effects of Oral Antiseptics on SARS-CoV-2 in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

(1) There are limited clinical trials to support the effectiveness of mouth rinses when used as a preprocedural rinse against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of antiseptic mouth rinses as a preprocedural rinse in reducing SARS-CoV-2 oral viral load in-vivo. (2) Methods: A literature search was conducted through November 2022 for the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The evaluated outcomes were quantitative changes in viral load and the statistical significance of that change after using antiseptic mouth rinses. (3) Results: 14 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were selected for risk of bias assessment and data extraction. (4) Conclusion: Within the limits of this systematic review, preprocedural mouth rinses may significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 in the mouth, thus, reducing the viral particles available for airborne dispersion. Preprocedural mouth rinses may be an effective strategy for reducing airborne SARS-CoV-2 dispersion in the environment. Their use may be a preventive strategy to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in selected medical and healthcare facilities, including dental clinics. Potential preprocedural mouth rinses are identified for use as an integral part of safe practice for healthcare protocols. This systematic review was registered with the National Institute for Health Research, international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42022315177.

Preprocedural mouthwashes for infection control in dentistry-an update

OBJECTIVES

Aerosols and splatter are routinely generated in dental practice and can be contaminated by potentially harmful bacteria or viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents have been proposed as a potential measure for infection control in dental practice. This review article aims to summarize the clinical (and, if insufficient, preclinical) evidence on preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents and to draw conclusions for dental practitioners.

METHODS

Literature on preprocedural mouthwashes for reduction of bacterial or viral load in dental aerosols was searched and summarized.

RESULTS

Preprocedural mouthwashes, particularly those containing chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), or essential oils (EO), can significantly reduce the bacterial load in dental aerosols. With respect to viruses such as HSV-1, there are too little clinical data to draw any clear recommendations. On the other hand, clinical data is consolidating that CPC-containing mouthwashes can temporarily reduce the intraoral viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Nevertheless, potential risks and side effects due to regular antiseptic use such as ecological effects or adaptation of bacteria need to be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can be recommended according to currently available data, but further studies are needed, particularly on the effects on other viruses besides SARS-CoV-2. When selecting a specific antiseptic, the biggest data basis currently exists for CHX, CPC, EO, or combinations thereof.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can serve as part of a bundle of measures for protection of dental personnel despite some remaining ambiguities and in view of potential risks and side effects.

Evaluating the effect of gargling with hydrogen peroxide and povidone-iodine on salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Background and Aim

This study evaluates the salivary viral load of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in hospitalized patients and outpatients before and after gargling with 1% hydrogen peroxide and 0.25% povidone-iodine in comparison with normal saline.

Patients and Methods

This clinical trial was conducted on 120 participants with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in two groups: outpatients (n = 60) and hospitalized patients (n = 60). In each group, the patients were randomly divided into three subgroups of 20 based on their given mouthwash for gargling (hydrogen peroxide, povidone-iodine, or normal saline). Two saliva samples were taken from each patient: the first one before gargling and the second one 10 minutes after gargling 10 ml of the respected mouthwashes for 30 seconds. The TaqMan real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of SARS-CoV-2 was used to measure the viral load.

Results

Saliva samples from 46% of patients were positive for coronavirus before gargling the mouthwashes. The percentage of patients with an initial positive saliva sample was significantly higher in the outpatient group (83.3%) than in the hospitalized group (5.4%) (P = 0.01). According to the findings, gargling any mouthwash similar to saline did not reduce the viral load (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The saliva of COVID-19 patients in the initial stage of the disease was more likely to contain SARS-CoV-2 than the saliva of the hospitalized patients. Gargling hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine did not reduce the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load.

In vitro antiviral activity of stabilized chlorine dioxide containing oral care products

OBJECTIVE

To determine the in vitro antiviral activity of oral care products containing stabilized chlorine dioxide toward infectious viruses that harbor in the oral cavity. Specfically, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), SARS-CoV, human coronavirus (HCoV) 229E, influenza A (H3N2), rhinovirus type 14, adenovirus type 5, and herpes simplex virus (HSV) type 1 and 2 were examined.

METHODS

Validated in vitro suspension virucidal assays were used. Test product was mixed with the test virus for 30, 60, or 120 s, neutralized with sodium thiosulfate, serially diluted in dilution medium in a 96-well plate and incubated in a carbon dioxide incubator for 7 days. The 50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose per milliliter was determined.

RESULTS

Two rinses, one oral spray and one fluoride toothpaste showed log reduction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 ranging from 1.81 to 2.98 and of influenza A from 2.58 to 4.13, respectively, within 30 s of contact time; similar results were obtained at 60 s. Further, the Ultra Sensitive rinse showed 0.19, 0.75, 1.58, 1.75, 2.66, and 3.24 log reduction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, human coronavirus 229E, rhinovirus type 14, adenovirus type 5, and herpes simplex virus type 1 and type 2, respectively, within 30 s of contact time.

CONCLUSION

Stabilized chlorine dioxide containing ClōSYS^® oral care products reduced the viral load of multiple viruses within 30 s. The results warrant further investigation for potential in vivo applications.

Efficacy of a Mouthwash Containing CHX and CPC in SARS-CoV-2-Positive Patients: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Soon after the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprocedural mouthwashes were recommended for temporarily reducing intraoral viral load and infectivity of individuals potentially infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in order to protect medical personnel. Particularly, the antiseptic cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) has shown virucidal effects against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Therefore, the aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy of a commercially available mouthwash containing CPC and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) at 0.05% each in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients as compared to a placebo mouthwash. Sixty-one patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with onset of symptoms within the last 72 h were included in this study. Oropharyngeal specimens were taken at baseline, whereupon patients had to gargle mouth and throat with 20 mL test or placebo (0.9% NaCl) mouthwash for 60 s. After 30 min, further oropharyngeal specimens were collected. Viral load was analyzed by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and infectivity of oropharyngeal specimens was analyzed by virus rescue in cell culture and quantified via determination of tissue culture infectious doses 50% (TCID₅₀). Data were analyzed nonparametrically (α = 0.05). Viral load slightly but significantly decreased upon gargling in the test group (P = 0.0435) but not in the placebo group. Viral infectivity as measured by TCID₅₀ also significantly decreased in the test group (P = 0.0313), whereas there was no significant effect but a trend in the placebo group. Furthermore, it was found that the specimens from patients with a vaccine booster exhibited significantly lower infectivity at baseline as compared to those without vaccine booster (P = 0.0231). This study indicates that a preprocedural mouthwash containing CPC and CHX could slightly but significantly reduce the viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Further studies are needed to corroborate these results and investigate whether the observed reductions in viral load and infectivity could translate into clinically useful effects in reducing COVID-19 transmission (German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00027812).

Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

A "non-interventional trial" in 88 patients (43±17 yrs., 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. Were repeated PCR in 3, 11 and 17 days.

RESULTS

After intervention the viral load (Log10 copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3±2.7 copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6±2.9 copies/ml; p=0.40) and controls (4.4±3.0 copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% y 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% y 81%.

CONCLUSION

Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

[Utility of mouth rinses with povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19]

Introduction

Povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide could be effective in against SARS-CoV-2.

Methods

A "non-interventional trial" in 88 patients (43 ± 17 yrs, 55% men) with SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swabs (RT-PCR). 31 received mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine (every 8 h, two consecutive days), 17 with mouth rinses/gargling of hydrogen peroxide, and 40 controls. PCR were repeated at 3, 11 and 17 days.

Results

After intervention the viral load (Log 10 copies/ml) remained similar in povidone-iodine (4.3 ± 2.7 copies/ml), hydrogen peroxide (4.6 ± 2.9 copies/ml; p = 0.40) and controls (4.4 ± 3.0 copies/ml). The percentage of patients with a negative result in the second PCR was 27% in povidone-iodine group, 23% in hydrogen peroxide and 32% in controls; in the third PCR, 62%, 54% and 58% respectively; and in the fourth PCR, 81%, 75% and 81%.

Conclusion

Our results do not support the clinical usefulness of mouth rinses/gargling with povidone-iodine or hydrogen peroxide in patients with COVID-19.

In vivo effect of mouthwashes on viable viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva: a pilot study

Current data on the efficacy of antiseptic mouthwashes to reduce viral load are contradictory. Firstly, in vitro data indicate very strong virucidal effects that are not replicated in clinical studies. Secondly, most clinical studies identify a limited effect, do not include a control/placebo group, or do not evaluate viral viability in an infection model. In the current manuscript, we perform a double-blind, randomized clinical trial where salivary viral load was measured before and after the mouthwash, and where saliva samples were also cultured in an in vitro infection model of SARS-CoV-2 to evaluate the effect of mouthwashes on viral viability. Our data show a 90-99% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 salivary copies with one of the tested mouthwashes, although we show that the remaining viruses are mostly viable. In addition, our data suggest that the active ingredient concentration and the overall excipients' formulation can play an important role; and most importantly, they indicate that the effect is not immediate, being significant at 15 min and having maximum effectiveness after 1 h. Thus, we show that some oral mouthwashes can be useful in reducing viral transmission, although their efficacy must be improved through refined formulations or revised protocols.

Mouth rinses efficacy on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load: A randomized clinical trial

Considering the global trend to confine the COVID-19 pandemic by applying various preventive health measures, preprocedural mouth rinsing has been proposed to mitigate the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 in dental clinics. The study aimed to investigate the effect of different mouth rinses on salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients. This study was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, six-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial that investigated the effect of four mouth rinses (1% povidone-iodine, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride, and 80 ppm hypochlorous acid) on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load relative to the distilled water and no-rinse control groups. The viral load was measured by quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) at baseline and 5, 30, and 60 min post rinsing. The viral load pattern within each mouth rinse group showed a reduction overtime; however, this reduction was only statistically significant in the hydrogen peroxide group. Further, a significant reduction in the viral load was observed between povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and cetylpyridinium chloride compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, indicating their late antiviral potential. Interestingly, a similar statistically significant reduction was also observed in the distilled water control group compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, proposing mechanical washing of the viral particles through the rinsing procedure. Therefore, results suggest using preprocedural mouth rinses, particularly hydrogen peroxide, as a risk-mitigation step before dental procedures, along with strict adherence to other infection control measures.

Efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing oral SARS-COV-2 load: a review

Accumulated evidence has shown that the oral cavity may be an important reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. Some authors have suggested that the use of mouthrinses could reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva. Thus, the aim of this review was to synthesize evidence about the efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. 2. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy of different mouthrinses in reducing salivary SARS-CoV-2 loads. Various active ingredients have been tested in these trials: 0.5%,1% and 2% povidone-iodine, 0.2% and 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), 0.075% CPC with Zinc lactate, 1% and 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (HP), 1.5% HP + 0.12% CHX and ß-cyclodextrin and citrox. The studies reported an intra-group reduction in the salivary levels of the virus, when compared with the baseline. However, the majority of these trials failed to demonstrate a significant inter-group difference between active groups and the control group relative to the decrease in salivary SARS-CoV-2 loads. Although promising, these results should be confirmed by larger trials.

Randomized clinical trial to assess the impact of oral intervention with cetylpyridinium chloride to reduce salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load

AIM

Aerosols released from the oral cavity help spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The use of a mouthwash formulated with an antiviral agent could reduce the viral load in saliva, helping to lower the spread of the virus. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a mouthwash with 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) to reduce the viral load in the saliva of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multi-centre, single-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical trial, 80 COVID-19 patients were enrolled and randomized to two groups, namely test (n = 40) and placebo (n = 40). Saliva samples were collected at baseline and 2 h after rinsing. The samples were analysed by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay test specific for the nucleocapsid (N) protein of SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

With RT-qPCR, no significant differences were observed between the placebo group and the test group. However, 2 h after a single rinse, N protein concentration in saliva was significantly higher in the test group, indicating an increase in lysed virus.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 0.07% CPC mouthwash induced a significant increase in N protein detection in the saliva of COVID-19 patients. Lysis of the virus in the mouth could help reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. However, more studies are required to prove this.

Virucidal activity in vitro of mouthwashes against a feline coronavirus type II

Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can occur through saliva and aerosol droplets deriving from the upper aerodigestive tract during coughing, sneezing, talking, and even during oral inspection or dental procedures. The aim of this study was to assess in vitro virucidal activity of commercial and experimental mouthwashes against a feline coronavirus (FCoV) strain. Commercial and experimental (commercial-based products with addition of either sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) or thymus vulgaris essential oil (TEO) at different concentrations) mouthwashes were placed in contact with FCoV for different time intervals, that is, 30 s (T30), 60 s (T60), and 180 s (T180); subsequently, the virus was titrated on Crandell Reese Feline Kidney cells. An SDS-based commercial mouthwash reduced the viral load by 5 log10 tissue culture infectious dose (TCID)₅₀ /50 µl at T30 while a cetylpyridinium (CPC)-based commercial mouthwash was able to reduce the viral titer of 4.75 log10 at T60. Furthermore, five experimental mouthwashes supplemented with SDS reduced the viral titer by 4.75-5 log10 according to a dose- (up to 4 mM) and time-dependent fashion.

Evaluation of Current Evidence on the Use of Oral Antiseptics Against SARS-CoV-2: A Narrative Review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The detection of SARS-COV-2 in the oral cavity has generated endless claims about the efficacy of using oral mouthwashes to reduce viral load. This review aims to assess the current evidence on the use of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 and to assess the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE system. The question this study focussed on was what is the efficacy of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A bibliographic search was performed in Medline databases through PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar (until February 2022), using search terms related to COVID-19 and oral antiseptics. Two independent researchers extracted the information from the articles included in an excel form. The identification and selection of the studies was carried out from August 2021 to February 2022.

RESULTS

It was found that oral antiseptics can have a potential beneficial effect on COVID-19, mainly in reducing viral load. However, these potential benefits are mainly based on in-vitro studies or clinical studies with various methodological limitations. At present, the certainty of the evidence is very low due to inconsistency (heterogeneity), moderate-to-high risk of bias, and imprecision of the results.

CONCLUSION

The certainty of the current evidence on the efficacy of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 is very low, mainly due to the methodological limitations of the studies. Therefore, for evidence-based decision-making about this intervention, clinical studies with greater methodological rigor are required. Oral antiseptics could present potential benefits in patients with COVID-19 mainly by reducing viral load. However, a careful and conscious evaluation of the evidence is required for decision-making in clinical practice.

Mouthwashes and the Effect on the Viral Load of SARS-CoV-2 in Saliva: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND: At present, several active ingredients have been investigated in mouthwashes having certain virucidal properties, which could reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 to avoid contamination in medical or dental practice. AIM: The objective of this review is to analyze the available evidence regarding mouthwashes and their effect on the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Records were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Virtual Health Library up to June 21, 2022. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials were included where saliva samples and laboratory or in vitro studies were used in the presence of saliva. RESULTS: After a systematic selection process, 11 clinical studies that evaluated at least one mouthwash within clinical protocols and three laboratory studies that evaluated the virucidal efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of saliva were finally included. CONCLUSION: There are oral disinfectants with virucidal action in saliva samples, under clinical and laboratory conditions, capable of reducing the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. Cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, and povidone-iodine present the best results so far. However, it was also possible to find active principles of recent appearance that, based on favorable exploratory results, needs further investigation on their efficacy and possible adverse events.

Efficacy of Mouth Rinses and Nasal Spray in the Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global and evolving pandemic associated with heavy health and financial burdens. Considering the oral cavity as the major reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. All in vivo and in vitro studies that assessed the virucidal efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays against SARS-CoV-2 and were published in the English language from December 2019 to April 2022 were considered for analyses. Special Medical Subject Headings terms were used to search Pubmed, Scopus, Embase Ovid, and Web of Science databases. The toxicological data reliability assessment tool (ToxRToool) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Thirty-three studies (11 in vivo and 22 in vitro) were deemed eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Results of the pooled data showed that povidone-iodine is the most efficacious intervention in vivo in terms of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load, followed by chlorhexidine. The mean difference in the viral load was 86% and 72%, respectively. Similarly, povidone-iodine was associated with the highest log₁₀ reduction value (LRV) in vitro, followed by cetylpyridinium chloride, (LRV = 2.938 (p < 0.0005) and LRV = 2.907 (p = 0.009), respectively). Povidone-iodine-based oral and nasal preparations showed favourable results in terms of reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads both in vivo and in vitro. Considering the limited number of patients in vivo, further studies among larger cohorts are recommended.

Preprocedural mouth rinses for preventing transmission of infectious diseases through aerosols in dental healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Aerosols and spatter are generated in a dental clinic during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) that use high-speed hand pieces. Dental healthcare providers can be at increased risk of transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis, measles and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) through droplets on mucosae, inhalation of aerosols or through fomites on mucosae, which harbour micro-organisms. There are ways to mitigate and contain spatter and aerosols that may, in turn, reduce any risk of disease transmission. In addition to personal protective equipment (PPE) and aerosol-reducing devices such as high-volume suction, it has been hypothesised that the use of mouth rinse by patients before dental procedures could reduce the microbial load of aerosols that are generated during dental AGPs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data  MAIN RESULTS:  We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias.  None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers.  The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent.  The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.

Can aerosols-generating dental, oral and maxillofacial, and orthopedic surgical procedures lead to disease transmission? An implication on the current COVID-19 pandemic

Various dental, maxillofacial, and orthopedic surgical procedures (DMOSP) have been known to produce bioaerosols, that can lead to the transmission of various infectious diseases. Hence, a systematic review (SR) aimed at generating evidence of aerosols generating DMOSP that can result in the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), further investigating their infectivity and assessing the role of enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) an essential to preventing the spreading of SARS-CoV-2 during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). This SR was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) guidelines based on a well-designed Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) framework, and various databases were searched to retrieve the studies which assessed potential aerosolization during DMOSP. This SR included 80 studies (59 dental and 21 orthopedic) with 7 SR, 47 humans, 5 cadaveric, 16 experimental, and 5 animal studies that confirmed the generation of small-sized < 5 μm particles in DMOSP. One study confirmed that HIV could be transmitted by aerosolized blood generated by an electric saw and bur. There is sufficient evidence that DMOSP generates an ample amount of bioaerosols, but the infectivity of these bioaerosols to transmit diseases like SARS-CoV-2 generates very weak evidence but still, this should be considered. Confirmation through isolation and culture of viable virus in the clinical environment should be pursued. An evidence provided by the current review was gathered by extrapolation from available experimental and empirical evidence not based on SARS-CoV-2. The results of the present review, therefore, should be interpreted with great caution.

Oral Antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2: A Literature Review

Dentists are health care workers with the highest risk of exposure to COVID-19, because the oral cavity is considered to be a reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The identification of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva, the generation of aerosols, and the proximity to patients during dental procedures are conditions that have led to these health care workers implementing additional disinfection strategies for their protection. Oral antiseptics are widely used chemical substances due to their ability to reduce the number of microorganisms. Although there is still no evidence that they can prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, some preoperative oral antiseptics have been recommended as control measures, by different health institutions worldwide, to reduce the number of microorganisms in aerosols and droplets during dental procedures. Therefore, this review presents the current recommendations for the use of oral antiseptics against SARS-CoV-2 and analyzes the different oral antiseptic options used in dentistry.

Recommendation of the German Society of Hospital Hygiene (DGKH): Prevention of COVID-19 by virucidal gargling and virucidal nasal spray - updated version April 2022

The German Society of Hospital Hygiene develops guidelines, recommendations and standard operation procedures on a voluntary basis, published on the DGKH-website (https://www.krankenhaushygiene.de/). The original German version of this recommendation was published in April 2022 and has now been made available to the international professional public in English. Evaluating the current data on the efficacy of virucidal gargle/mouthwash solutions and nasal sprays against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in clinical trials, conducted with preventive or therapeutic objectives, recommendations are given for the prevention of COVID-19. The following areas are considered: Protection of the community when regional clusters or high incidences of infection become knownProtection of the community at low risk of infectionPre-exposure prophylaxis for the protection of healthcare workersPost-exposure prophylaxis.

Effect of Oral Antiseptics in Reducing SARS-CoV-2 Infectivity: Evidence from a Randomized Double-blind Clinical Trial

Background: In vitro studies have shown that several oral antiseptics have virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, mouthwashes have been proposed as an easy to implement strategy to reduce viral transmission. However, there are no data measuring SARS-CoV-2 viability after mouthwashes in vivo. Methods: In this randomized double-blind, five-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial, SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load (by quantitative PCR) and its infectious capacity (incubating saliva in cell cultures) have been evaluated before and after four different antiseptic mouthwashes and placebo in 54 COVID-19 patients. Results: Contrary to in vitro evidence, salivary viral load was not affected by any of the four tested mouthwashes. Viral culture indicated that cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) significantly reduced viral infectivity, but only at 1-hour post-mouthwash. Conclusion: These results indicate that some of the mouthwashes currently used to reduce viral infectivity are not efficient in vivo and, furthermore, that this effect is not immediate, generating a false sense of security.

Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04707742..

Efficacy of antiseptic mouthrinses against SARS-CoV-2: A prospective randomized placebo-controlled pilot study

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Ecological Effects of Daily Antiseptic Treatment on Microbial Composition of Saliva-Grown Microcosm Biofilms and Selection of Resistant Phenotypes

Antiseptics are widely used in dental practice and included in numerous over-the-counter oral care products. However, the effects of routine antiseptic use on microbial composition of oral biofilms and on the emergence of resistant phenotypes remain unclear. Microcosm biofilms were inoculated from saliva samples of four donors and cultured in the Amsterdam Active Attachment biofilm model for 3 days. Then, they were treated two times daily with chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) for a period of 7 days. Ecological changes upon these multiple antiseptic treatments were evaluated by semiconductor-based sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes and identification of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Furthermore, culture-based approaches were used for colony-forming units (CFU) assay, identification of antiseptic-resistant phenotypes using an agar dilution method, and evaluation of their antibiotic susceptibilities. Both CHX and CPC showed only slight effects on CFU and could not inhibit biofilm growth despite the two times daily treatment for 7 days. Both antiseptics showed significant ecological effects on the microbial compositions of the surviving microbiota, whereby CHX led to enrichment of rather caries-associated saccharolytic taxa and CPC led to enrichment of rather gingivitis-associated proteolytic taxa. Antiseptic-resistant phenotypes were isolated on antiseptic-containing agar plates, which also exhibited phenotypic resistance to various antibiotics. Our results highlight the need for further research into potential detrimental effects of antiseptics on the microbial composition of oral biofilms and on the spread of antimicrobial resistance in the context of their frequent use in oral healthcare.

Cetylpyridinium Chloride Mouthwash to Reduce Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

The airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) via respiratory fluids and droplets suggests that mouthwashes containing substances with virucidal activity can help reduce viral spread. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to assess the virucidal activity of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes. Outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without symptoms were randomized to perform washes and gargles for 1 min with 15 mL of either colored distilled water or 0.07% CPC (Vitis CPC Protect) mouthwash. The study outcomes were the SARS-CoV-2 log₁₀ viral RNA load and the nucleocapsid protein levels, both in saliva at 1 and 3 h after the intervention. In total, 118 patients were enrolled and randomized (mean [SD], age 46 [14] y). Thirteen of 118 participants (11%) did not complete follow-up or had insufficient sample volume for testing and were excluded from the analysis. The assessment of the viral load showed no significant differences between groups at any of the investigated points. However, the levels of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein of lysed viruses were significantly higher in the CPC group compared with the control group at 1 h (adjusted difference 269.3 pg/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 97.1-441.5) and at 3 h postintervention (561.1 pg/mL; 95% CI, 380.0-742.2). In nonhospitalized patients with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a 0.07% CPC mouthwash, compared to placebo, was associated with a significant increase of nucleocapsid protein levels in saliva, indicating enhanced disruption of viral particles.

Mouthrinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: a living systematic review

Objective To conduct a living systematic review of the clinical evidence about the effect of different mouthrinses on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of infected patients.Methods This study was reported using the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search was conducted in seven databases and preprint repositories. We included human clinical trials that evaluated the effect of mouthrinses with antiseptic substances on the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the saliva of children or adults, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021240561.Results Five studies were included (n = 66 participants). Study participants underwent oral rinses with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 1%, povidone-iodine (PI) at 0.5% or 1%, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at 0.2% or 0.12%, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) at 0.075%, and Linolasept. Only one study included a control group with sterile water. Three of the studies identified a reduction in viral load in saliva after the use of mouthrinses with PI (up to three hours), CHX (up to four hours), or Linolasept mouthwash (up to six hours). One study reported a statistically significant reduction after the use of mouthrinses with CPC or PI vs water (up to six hours) and one study reported a non-significant reduction in viral load after the use of H2O2 rinses.Conclusions According to the present systematic review, the effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva of COVID-19 patients remains uncertain. Evidence from well-designed randomised clinical trials is required for further and more objective evaluation of this effect.

Phenotypic Adaptation to Antiseptics and Effects on Biofilm Formation Capacity and Antibiotic Resistance in Clinical Isolates of Early Colonizers in Dental Plaque

Despite the wide-spread use of antiseptics in dental practice and oral care products, there is little public awareness of potential risks associated with antiseptic resistance and potentially concomitant cross-resistance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate potential phenotypic adaptation in 177 clinical isolates of early colonizers of dental plaque (Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Rothia and Veillonella spp.) upon repeated exposure to subinhibitory concentrations of chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) over 10 passages using a modified microdilution method. Stability of phenotypic adaptation was re-evaluated after culture in antiseptic-free nutrient broth for 24 or 72 h. Strains showing 8-fold minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC)-increase were further examined regarding their biofilm formation capacity, phenotypic antibiotic resistance and presence of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Eight-fold MIC-increases to CHX were detected in four Streptococcus isolates. These strains mostly exhibited significantly increased biofilm formation capacity compared to their respective wild-type strains. Phenotypic antibiotic resistance was detected to tetracycline and erythromycin, consistent with the detected ARGs. In conclusion, this study shows that clinical isolates of early colonizers of dental plaque can phenotypically adapt toward antiseptics such as CHX upon repeated exposure. The underlying mechanisms at genomic and transcriptomic levels need to be investigated in future studies.

Mouthrinses against SARS-CoV-2 – high antiviral effectivity by membrane disruption in vitro translates to mild effects in a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) represents an unprecedented threat for the human population, necessitating rapid and effective intervention measures. Given the main infection route by airborne transmission, significant attention has been bestowed upon the use of antiseptic mouthrinses as a way to possibly reduce infectious viral titers. However, clinical evaluations are still sparse. Thus, we evaluated a wide variety of antiseptic agents that can be used as mouthrinses for their antiviral effects in vitro and their respective mode of action. One of the most promising antiseptic agents (benzalkoniumchloride, BAC) was used in a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial with subsequent analysis of viral loads by RT-qPCR and virus rescue in cell culture. Mechanistic analysis revealed that treatment with BAC and other antiseptic agents efficiently inactivated SARS-CoV-2 in vitro by primarily disrupting the viral envelope, without affecting viral RNA integrity. However, the clinical application only resulted in a mild reduction of viral loads in the oral cavity. These results indicate that gargling with mouthrinses comprising single antiseptic agents may play a minor role towards a potential reduction of transmission rates and thus, these findings are of utmost importance when considering alternative COVID-19 prevention strategies.

Virucidal Activity of Over-the-Counter Oral Care Products Against SARS-CoV-2

PURPOSE

The oral cavity is an important entry point for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study tested whether four commercially available mouthrinses and dentifrices have in vitro virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 (=4 log10 reduction in viral titer).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One part of stock SARS-CoV-2 virus plus one part 0.3 g/l bovine serum albumin were mixed with eight parts of test product solution. After 30 s for the rinses, or 60 s for the dentifrices, the mixture was quenched in an appropriate neutralizer, serially diluted, and inoculated onto Vero E6 cells to determine viral titer. Triplicate runs were performed for each test condition with appropriate controls for test product cytotoxicity, viral interference, and neutralizer effectiveness. Test products included: 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) rinse; 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) rinse; 0.454% stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrice A; and 0.454% SnF2 dentifrice B.

RESULTS

?The 1.5% H2O2 rinse, 0.07% CPC rinse, SnF2 dentifrice A, and SnF2 dentifrice B all produced > 4 log10 reduction in SARS-CoV-2 titer.

CONCLUSION

All four test products displayed potent virucidal activity in vitro. Clinical studies are warranted to determine what role, if any, these oral care products might play in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or in the management of patients currently diagnosed with COVID-19 illness.

Salivary biomarkers of neurodegenerative and demyelinating diseases and biosensors for their detection

Salivary analysis is gaining increasing interest as a novel and promising field of research for the diagnosis of neurodegenerative and demyelinating diseases related to aging. The collection of saliva offers several advantages, being noninvasive, stress-free, and repeatable. Moreover, the detection of biomarkers directly in saliva could allow an early diagnosis of the disease, leading to timely treatments. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight the most relevant researchers' findings relatively to salivary biomarkers of neurodegenerative and demyelinating diseases, and to describe innovative and advanced biosensing strategies for the detection of salivary biomarkers. This review is focused on five relevant aging-related neurodegenerative disorders (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Huntington's disease, Multiple Sclerosis) and the salivary biomarkers most commonly associated with them. Advanced biosensors enabling molecular diagnostics for the detection of salivary biomarkers are presented, in order to stimulate future research in this direction and pave the way for their clinical application.

Efficacy of Pre-Procedural Mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

The oral mucosa is one of the first sites to be affected by the SARS-CoV-2. For this reason, healthcare providers performing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in the oral cavity are at high risk of infection with COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review is to verify whether there is evidence in the literature describing a decrease in the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2 after using different mouthwashes. An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library database was carried out. The criteria used were those described by the PRISMA® Statement. Randomized controlled trial studies that have used mouthwashes as a form of intervention to reduce the viral load in saliva were included. The risk of bias was analyzed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Ultimately, eight articles were included that met the established criteria. Based on the evidence currently available in the literature, PVP-I, CHX and CPC present significant virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and could be used as pre-procedural mouthwashes to reduce the risk of cross-infection.

Virucidal Activity of Different Mouthwashes against the Salivary Load of SARS-CoV-2: A Narrative Review

The saliva of COVID-19-confirmed patients presents a high viral load of the virus. Aerosols generated during medical and dental procedures can transport the virus and are a possible causative agent of cross-infection. Since the onset of the pandemic, numerous investigations have been attempting to mitigate the risk of transmission by reducing the viral load in saliva using preprocedural mouthwashes. This study aims to review the most up-to-date in vitro and in vivo studies investigating the efficacy of different mouthwashes on reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2, giving particular attention to the most recent randomized control trials published.

ANTIVIRAL EFFECT OF MOUTHWASHES AGAINST SARS-COV-2: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Objective

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Material and methods

An electronic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, and was complemented by a manual search. Both clinical and in vitro studies that focused on the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed only on the clinical studies using the RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools.

Results

A total of 907 records were found; after initial selection by title and abstract, 33 full-text articles were selected to be evaluated for eligibility. Finally, a total of 27 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, including 16 in vitro studies and 11 clinical trials. Antiviral effects were evaluated separately for the in vitro and clinical studies. In vitro studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and other compounds; in vivo studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, essential oils, chlorine dioxide, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol. Povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils were effective in vitro, while hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol were effective in vivo. Unclear or high risk of bias was found for almost all clinical studies, and only one study presented with a low risk of bias. No further quantitative analysis was performed.

Conclusion

Although povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils may be an alternative to reduce the viral load in vitro and in vivo, more studies are needed to determine the real antiviral effect of these different mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2.

This work was not funded. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021236134).

In Vitro Effect of Instrumentation Using Ultrasonication with and without Hydrogen Peroxide on the Removal of Biofilms and Spread of Viable Microorganisms in Aerosols

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of hydrogen peroxide as an adjunct to ultrasonication (US) in biofilm removal and whether it can limit the spread of viable microorganisms in the aerosol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multi-species biofilms were formed on dentin disks and titanium disks fixed on a plastic surface. After placing the specimens in a periodontal pocket model, an ultrasonic scaler was applied for 30 s, in part combined with 0.25% or 0.5% H2O2. After treatment, the remaining biofilm was analysed for bacterial counts (colony forming units [CFU]), biofilm quantity and metabolic activity. Further, the cytotoxic effect of hydrogen peroxide on periodontal ligament fibroblasts was assessed and the spread of bacteria in aerosol was quantified.

RESULTS

Ultrasonication reduced bacterial counts in biofilm, biofilm mass and metabolic activity on both dentin and titanium disks. Adjunctive use of 0.25% and 0.5% H2O2 more effectively reduced the viable bacteria in biofilm than ultrasonication alone; this was also found on both dentin and titanium. The different concentrations of H2O2 did not lead to corresponding differences in bacterial mass and metabolic activity. The spread of bacteria through aerosols was statistically significantly reduced when adjunctive H2O2 was used. However, a certain cytotoxic effect on periodontal ligament fibroblasts by H2O2 could not be ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrigating with H2O2 during periodontal instrumentation with an ultrasonic scaler increases the reduction of viable bacteria within biofilms. It might limit bacterial spreading via aerosols.

Clinical evaluation of antiseptic mouth rinses to reduce salivary load of SARS-CoV-2

Most public health measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic are based on preventing the pathogen spread, and the use of oral antiseptics has been proposed as a strategy to reduce transmission risk. The aim of this manuscript is to test the efficacy of mouthwashes to reduce salivary viral load in vivo. This is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial that tests the effect of four mouthwashes (cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide) in SARS-CoV-2 salivary load measured by qPCR at baseline and 30, 60 and 120 min after the mouthrinse. A fifth group of patients used distilled water mouthrinse as a control. Eighty-four participants were recruited and divided into 12–15 per group. There were no statistically significant changes in salivary viral load after the use of the different mouthwashes. Although oral antiseptics have shown virucidal effects in vitro, our data show that salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients was not affected by the tested treatments. This could reflect that those mouthwashes are not effective in vivo, or that viral particles are not infective but viral RNA is still detected by PCR. Viral infectivity studies after the use of mouthwashes are therefore required. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04707742; Identifier: NCT04707742)