Do hydrogen peroxide mouthwashes have a virucidal effect? A systematic review

Aerosol-generating procedures and associated control/mitigation measures: Position paper from the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and the American Dental Hygienists' Association

Background

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, how to reduce the risk of spreading viruses and other microorganisms while performing aerosolgenerating procedures (AGPs) has become a challenging question within the dental and dental hygiene communities. The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of various mitigation methods used to reduce the risk of infection transmission during AGPs in dentistry.

Methods

The authors searched 6 databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar-for relevant scientific evidence published between January 2012 and December 2022 to answer 6 research questions about the risk of transmission, methods, devices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) used to reduce contact with microbial pathogens and limit the spread of aerosols.

Results

A total of 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The literature on the risk of infection transmission including SARS-CoV-2 between dental hygienists and their patients is limited. Although several mouthrinses are effective in reducing bacterial contaminations in aerosols, their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 is also limited. The combined use of eyewear, masks, and face shields is effective in preventing contamination of the facial and nasal region while performing AGPs. High-volume evacuation with or without an intraoral suction, low-volume evacuation, saliva ejector, and rubber dam (when appropriate) have shown effectiveness in reducing aerosol transmission beyond the generation site. Finally, the appropriate combination of ventilation and filtration in dental operatories is effective in limiting the spread of aerosols.

Discussion and Conclusion

Aerosols produced during clinical procedures can pose a risk of infection transmission between dental hygienists and their patients. The implementation of practices supported by available evidence will ensure greater patient and provider safety in oral health settings. More studies in oral health clinical environments would shape future practices and protocols, ultimately to ensure the delivery of safe clinical care.

Effectiveness of Mouthwashes in Managing Oral Diseases and Conditions: Do They Have a Role?

Antimicrobial mouthwashes are considered to reduce dental plaque biofilm and thus the potential to prevent plaque-induced oral diseases, particularly periodontal diseases. The effectiveness of mouthwashes relates to this antiplaque role, as well as, their tooth-whitening potential and ability to mask/mange malodour (halitosis). There is also a growing interest in the use of mouthwashes as an adjunctive measure in post surgical and post-dental care, while the COVID-19 pandemic has given a new lease of life to mouthwashes as an oral antispetic that may be useful in reducing the oral viral load. The mode of action of mouthwashes varies, depending on their active ingredients, concentrations, and mode and frequency of use, as does their potential effectiveness. This article aims to provide a narrative overview of the evidence of the effectiveness of the most widely used mouthwashes in managing oral diseases, oral conditions, and adjunctive care roles.

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.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Clinical Mouthwash Protocol and Prevalence of the Oral Pathogen Scardovia wiggsiae: A Pilot Study of Antibacterial Effects

One protocol in healthcare facilities and dental offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic for reducing the amount of detectable oral SARS-CoV-2 has been gargling with mouthwash for 60 s. This protocol lasts longer than the daily routine for most patients and may have unexpected benefits in reducing oral microbes as a result. This project evaluated the prevalence of the newly identified oral pathogen Scardovia wiggsiae before and after this procedure to determine any measurable effects. Using an approved protocol, n = 36 pre-mouthwash patient samples, n = 36 matched post-mouthwash samples, and n = 36 matched recall samples were identified (total sample number n = 108). DNA was isolated from each sample (pre-, post-mouthwash, and recall). Screening using qPCR and validated primers revealed n = 10/36 or 27.8% tested positive for Scardovia among the pre-mouthwash (Sample A) isolates with n = 3/36 or 8.3% testing positive among the post-mouthwash (Sample B) isolates. Screening of the recall (Sample C) samples has revealed n = 10/36, or 27.8% once again tested positive for Scardovia, demonstrating that this pathogen was found among a significant proportion of pediatric patient samples. Moreover, the COVID-19-related procedure of requiring sustained mouth washing prior to clinical treatment appears to reduce the levels of detectable Scardovia, at least initially. However, this study found no long-term effects using this isolated protocol.

Effects of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine on the SARS-CoV-2 Load: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The efficacy of mouthwash for reducing the viral load in patients with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively examined the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVP-I) on the viral load in patients with COVID-19. We performed methodological analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis of included studies using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis Software. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest were searched from December 1, 2019, to December 2, 2021. In total, we included 10 studies of 1,339 patients with COVID-19. Compared with the control group, both CHX and PVP-I significantly reduced the number of negative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results (p<0.001) among COVID-19 patients. The CHX and PVP-I were effective on reducing the number of negative RT-PCR results in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies using adequate randomization methods and larger samples are warned.

Aerosol in the oral health-care setting: a misty topic

Studies have shown that mouth and respiratory tract microorganisms can be transported in aerosol and spatter. Due to aerosol-generating procedures, there are potentially various infection risks for patients and those working in health care, especially in oral health care. Dental aerosol can contaminate not only the mucous membranes of the oral health-care professional's mouth, respiratory passages, and eyes but also exposed surfaces and materials in the environment. As such, preventing disease transmission within oral health-care offices is important issue. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, an innumerable amount of (mis)information and advice on how to stay safe and prevent the spread of coronavirus has been published. What preventive measures can and have been taken to counteract this, and what have we learned during the pandemic? This review summarizes relevant literature that has addressed the presence and dispersal of aerosol and spatter as a concern in health care. It includes the sources of dental aerosol, their potential health threats, and strategies for controlling and mitigating their impact. It shows that further research is needed to better understand the potential health risks of dental aerosol and to develop effective strategies for mitigating them. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using personal protective equipment, high-volume evacuation systems and pre-procedural antimicrobial agents can help to reduce the potential for infection in oral health-care settings and protect the well-being of oral health-care workers and their patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dental Care and Education Facing Highly Transmissible SARS-CoV-2 Variants: Prospective Biosafety Setting: Prospective, Single-Arm, Single-Center Study

With the arrival of the highly transmissible Omicron variants (BA.4 and BA.5), dentistry faces another seasonal challenge to preserve the biosafety of dental care and education. With the aim of protecting patients, students, teachers and healthcare professionals, this paper introduces a prospective sustainable biosafety setting for everyday dental care and education. The setting developed by dental clinicians, epidemiologists, and teachers of dentistry consists of a combination of modern technologies focused on the air-borne part of the viral pathway. The introduced biosafety setting has been clinically evaluated after 18 months of application in the real clinical environment. The protocol has three fundamental pillars: (1) UVC air disinfection; (2) air saturation with certified virucidal essences with nebulizing diffusers; (3) complementary solutions including telehealth and 3D printing. A pseudonymous online smart form was used as the evaluation method. The protocol operates on the premise that everybody is a hypothetical asymptomatic carrier. The results of a clinical evaluation of 115 patient feedbacks imply that no virus transmission from patient to patient or from doctor to nurse was observed or reported using this protocol, and vice versa, although nine patients retrospectively admitted that the clinic visit is likely to be infectious. Despite these promising results, a larger clinical sample and exposition to the current mutated strains are needed for reliable conclusions about protocol virucidal efficiency in current dental environments.

Evaluation of the Effect of Anti-COVID-19 Mouthwashes on Shear Bond Strength of Composite Resin Restorations to Dentin and Enamel: An “In Vitro Study”

Objectives

Given the high prevalence of the coronavirus and the high risk of virus transfer to dentists, the use of mouthwashes, which can potentially eliminate this virus, is suggested before dental procedures. Since these mouthwashes may affect the bond strength of composite resin restorations to teeth, this study was conducted to investigate the effect of recommended mouthwashes on the shear bond strength of composite resin restorations to dentin and enamel in selective etch and rinse and two-step self-etch bonding systems.

Methods

Five groups of posterior teeth (n = 15) were selected for five groups of cetylpyridinium chloride 0.07%, povidone-iodine 1%, hydrogen peroxide 1%, and chlorhexidine 0.2% as mouthwash and distilled water as the control group. The buccal enamel and lingual dentin of each tooth were rinsed after immersion in a mouthwash. After 20 seconds of enamel acid-etching and 15 seconds of dentin priming, they were impregnated with an adhesive, and composite cylinders were placed on the dentin and enamel surfaces of the tooth. The shear bond strength test was performed after 24 hours, and results were analyzed by ANOVA and paired t-test (α = 0.05).

Results

The mean shear bond strength of enamel to composite was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of dentin to composite in each study group, but no significant difference was found between the mean shear bond strength of composite to enamel (p = 0.199) and to dentin (p = 0.335) after the use of mouthwashes and that of the control group.

Conclusion

The use of mouthwashes used in this study did not have negative effects on the shear bond strength of composite to enamel and dentin.

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).

Comparison of chlorhexidine and hydrogen peroxide as preprocedural mouthrinse during ultrasonic scaling: A triple-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial

Background:

Every year, around 2 million people suffer from hospital-acquired infections worldwide. Aerosols are produced while performing ultrasonic scaling. They are potential source of infection and cross contamination. It can result in spread of several infections including hepatitis, HIV, SARS CoV 2, etc. Preprocedural rinse before scaling is considered an effective measure to reduce the microbial load in aerosols.

Materials and Methods:

This study was a triple-blinded randomized controlled trial performed on 90 participants diagnosed with chronic periodontitis. Random allocation of participants into three groups, i.e., Group-1, Group-2, and Group-3, was done, wherein 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (HP), and distilled water (DW) were used, respectively, as preprocedural mouthrinse. The participants of each group were instructed to perform mouthrinse for 60 s before the start of ultrasonic scaling sessions. Blood agar plates were kept at three locations, i.e., operator's chest area, patient's chest area, and assistant's chest area for aerosol collection after scaling. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted for microbiological analysis.

Results:

Least number of CFUs was found in the CHX group, followed by HP and DW groups. Location wise, the patient's chest area had the highest CFU count and the least was at the assistant's chest area. CFU count between the groups was statistically significant.

Conclusion:

Preprocedural rinse using HP can effectively be used as a method to reduce dental aerosols generated during ultrasonic scaling.

Is hydrogen peroxide an effective mouthwash for reducing the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in dental clinics?

•

RT-PCR was used to detect SARS-CoV-2 in HEPA filters in a dental clinic.

•

SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the waiting room but not in the treatment rooms.

•

CO₂ levels indicated low ventilation and risk of COVID-19 transmission.

•

The virucidal effect of H₂O₂ mouth rinsing was proven.

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by inhalation of aerosols and can remain viable in the air for hours. Viruses can spread in dental settings and put professionals and patients at high risk of infection due to proximity and aerosol-generating procedures, and poor air ventilation.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of a 1% hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) mouth rinse on reducing the intraoral SARS-CoV-2 load.

Methods

Portable air cleaners with HEPA filters exposed for 3 months were analysed to test for virus presence in a waiting room (where patients wore a face mask but did not undergo mouth rinsing) and three treatment rooms (where patients wore no mask but carried out mouth rinsing). As CO₂ is co-exhaled with aerosols containing SARS-CoV-2 by COVID-19 infected people, we also measured CO₂ as a proxy of infection risk indoors. Specific primer and probe RT-PCR were applied to detect viral genomes of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the filters. Specifically, we amplified the nucleocapsid gene (Nuclv) of SARS-CoV-2.

Results

CO₂ levels ranged from 860 to 907 ppm, thus indicating low ventilation and the risk of COVID-19 transmission. However, we only found viral load in filters from the waiting room and not from the treatment rooms. The results revealed the efficiency of 1-minute mouth rinsing with 1% H₂O₂ since patients rinsed their mouths immediately after removing their mask in the treatment rooms.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that dental clinics would be safer and more COVID-19 free by implementing mouth rinsing 1 min with 1% H₂O₂ immediately after the patients arrive at the clinic.

The effect of mouthwashes on SARS-CoV-2 viral load: a systematic review

Background

Considering that the oral cavity is a major entryway and reservoir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the aim of the authors was to perform a systematic review of in vivo and in vitro studies to assess the effectiveness of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load.

Types of Studies Reviewed

The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and bioRxiv databases, including in vitro and in vivo studies assessing the virucidal effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 or surrogates. From a total of 1,622 articles retrieved, the authors included 39 in this systematic review.

Results

Povidone-iodine was the most studied mouthrinse (14 in vitro and 9 in vivo studies), frequently showing significant reductions in viral load in in vitro assays. Similarly, cetylpyridinium chloride also showed good results, although it was evaluated in fewer studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate and hydrogen peroxide showed conflicting results on SARS-CoV-2 load reduction in both in vitro and in vivo studies.

Practical Implications

Povidone-iodine–based mouthrinses appear to be the best option as an oral prerinse in the dental context for SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduction. Although the results of primary studies are relevant, there is a need for more in vivo studies on mouthrinses, in particular, randomized controlled clinical trials, to better understand their effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infection prevention.

Could mouth rinses be an adjuvant in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients? An appraisal with a systematic review

Objective

A wide variety of mouth rinses are available to combat micro‐organisms in the oral cavity. At the present global pandemic, the need of the hour is to control the viral infection due to the novel corona virus SARS‐COV‐2, as its port of entry is through the receptors located in the oral and pharyngeal mucosa. This systematic literature review focuses on the in vivo studies [randomized control trials (RCTs)] done on the efficacy of existing mouth rinses which have been used in reducing the viral loads.

Methods

The electronic database which includes PubMed‐MEDLINE, Google scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, ProQuest and CINAHL was searched from December 2019 to June 2021 with appropriate Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Boolean operators. Two reviewers independently reviewed the abstracts.

Results

Of the 2438 retrieved titles, 905 remained after removing duplicates. Twelve articles were eligible to be included in this review of which seven were randomized with adequate sample size.

Conclusions

Mouth washes containing povidone iodine and chlorhexidine decrease the viral load transiently. Large amount of in vivo studies are of paramount importance, especially RCTs, to prove the efficacy of these mouth rinses.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on urgent dental care delivery in a Swiss university center for dental medicine

Objectives

This study aimed to assess whether the emergency service of a major Swiss dental institution faced different demands (patient volume, treatment needs, dental care characteristics) during a lockdown, issued to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the weeks before and after.

Materials and methods

Data of patients receiving urgent care at a university center for dental medicine (Basel, Switzerland) during the 6-week lockdown, pre-lockdown, and post-lockdown periods were retrospectively evaluated. Statistical analysis involved tests for equal proportions and logistic regression models. The level of significance was set at α=0.05.

Results

The study comprised 3109 dental emergency visits in the period from February 2 to June 5, 2020. Daily caseloads increased during lockdown. Abscesses, orthodontic emergencies, and surgical follow-ups were more common during lockdown, whereas the number of dento-alveolar injuries declined (≤0.048). Urgent dental care provision involved intraoral radiographs more frequently in the pre-lockdown period compared with the following weeks (p<0.001). Among all treatments, aerosol-generating procedures dropped from 56.1% (pre-lockdown) to 21.3% during lockdown (p<0.001), while teledentistry follow-ups became more frequent (p<0.001). Patients with comorbidities sought urgent dental care less frequently during the post-lockdown period (p=0.004).

Conclusions

The lockdown significantly impacted the dental emergency service in terms of patients’ diagnoses, treatment needs, and the characteristics of the urgent care that was delivered.

Clinical relevance

Access to essential dental care must be monitored and safeguarded throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond as deferred care entails risks for serious sequelae and persons with comorbidities may change their dental care-seeking behavior.

Aerosols Generated during Endodontic Treatment: A Special Concern during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to investigate aerosolized microorganisms generated during endodontic emergencies and nonsurgical root canal therapy (NSRCT), to assess the spread of airborne microbes, and to verify the spatial distribution of airborne microbial spread.

METHODS

A total of 45 endodontic procedures were sampled, including full pulpotomy (n = 15), pulpectomy (n = 15), and NSRCT (n = 15). Samples were collected during room resting and after treatment. The passive air sampling technique using settle plates was applied. Agar plates were set at different locations in the operatory. The colony-forming unit (CFU) was counted in brain-heart infusion blood agar plates. A set of agar plates containing selective chromogenic culture media was used for the isolation and presumptive identification of target microorganisms. Fungi were investigated using Sabouraud dextrose agar.

RESULTS

Pulpotomy generated the lowest mean CFU count (P < .05). There was no difference between the mean CFU counts found in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P > .05). A higher mean CFU count was found close to the patient's mouth (0.5 m) than at a 2-m distance in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P < .05). There was no difference between the mean CFU count found in front of the patient's mouth versus diagonal in pulpectomy and NSRCT (P > .05). Staphylococcus aureus (22/45, 48.8%) was the most frequent bacteria species. Longer treatment times were associated with higher CFU counts.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicated that pulpotomy generates less aerosolized microorganisms than pulpectomy and NSRCT. The proximity to the patient's mouth and the treatment duration were implicated in the level of contamination.

Topical Oral and Intranasal Antiviral Agents for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

With the largest viral loads in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) present in the oral and nasal cavities, agents that act on these two areas have the potential for large therapeutic and prophylactic benefit. A literature review was conducted to elucidate the possible agents useful in treatment of SARS-CoV-2. These agents were evaluated for their current applications, adverse reactions, their current state of study, and any future considerations in their management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019). Our review has found that, while there are many promising agents with proven efficacy in their in-vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, more clinical trials and in-vivo studies, as well as safety trials, must be conducted before these agents can be effectively implemented.