Effectiveness of mouth rinses against COVID-19: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Effectiveness of Preprocedural Mouthwashes: A Triple-Blind Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Bioaerosols generated during dental treatment are considered to be potentially carriers of infectious respiratory pathogens. The use of preprocedural mouthwashes has been suggested to reduce microbial load prior to dental surgery procedures. However, limited evidence on the effectiveness of preprocedural mouthwashes regarding mitigating respiratory pathogens exists. The aim of this clinical trial is to determine and compare the effectiveness of 3 preprocedural mouthwashes recommended by the Department of Health of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the mitigation of respiratory pathogens during dental care in pandemic times.

METHODS

In all, 228 participants were block-randomised to three groups based on preprocedural mouthwash used: povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and chlorhexidine digluconate. Participants, operators, and assessors were blinded to the assigned mouthwashes (triple-blind). Saliva was assessed for the presence of a number of respiratory pathogens (19 viruses including SARS-CoV-2). Changes in the prevalence and mean number of "any" pathogen present following mouthwash use were determined.

RESULTS

Overall, the prevalence of any detected respiratory viral pathogens in the preprocedural saliva was 3.5% as compared to the postprocedural saliva: 1.3% (P = .034). The mean (SD) number of viruses was significantly lower following preprocedural mouthwash use, from 0.04 (0.18) to 0.01 (0.11) (P = .025). No significant differences were observed in the downward change (∆) of any detected virus (prevalence) (P = .155) or in the reduction of the mean number (∆) of any detected virus in the postprocedural saliva compared to preprocedural saliva of participants with respect to mouthwash used (P = .375).

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of using preprocedural mouthwash, as recommended by the government of Hong Kong, was effective in reducing the number of respiratory pathogens present during dental aerosol-generating treatment. This study lends support for official policy on use of preprocedural mouthwashes, which has significant implications for practice and policy during pandemics.

A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, OPEN-LABEL, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL OF THE EFFECT OF CETYLPYRIDINIUM CHLORIDE (CPC) MOUTHWASH AND ON-DEMAND AQUEOUS CHLORINE DIOXIDE MOUTHWASH ON SARS-COV-2 VIRAL TITER IN PATIENTS WITH MILD COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

The established effect of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwash on SARS-CoV-2 viral titers is unclear. No clinical trial has examined the impact of on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash on SARS-CoV-2 viral titer.

METHODS

In this multicenter, 3-armed, randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled clinical trial involving mildly symptomatic COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned them to receive 20 mL of 0.05% CPC, 10 mL of 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide, or 20 mL of purified water as a placebo mouthwash in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary measurement was the SARS-CoV-2 viral titer in saliva, evaluated by a mixed-effects linear regression model.

RESULTS

49 patients received CPC mouthwash (n=16), on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash (n=16), and placebo (n=17) between January 14, 2024, and February 20, 2024. 0.05% CPC mouthwash significantly reduced salivary viral titer at 10 minutes postuse (-0.97 log10 PFU/mL; 95% CI, -1.64 to -0.30; P = .004), while no such effect was observed at 30 minutes (difference vs placebo, -0.26 log10 PFU/mL; 95% CI, -0.92 to 0.40; P = .435) or 60 minutes (difference vs. placebo, -0.05 log10 PFU/mL; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.58; P = .877). 0.01% on-demand chlorine dioxide mouthwash did not reduce salivary viral titer at 10 minutes, 30 minutes, or 60 minutes compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

10 minutes after using a 0.05% CPC mouthwash, the salivary viral titer of SARS-CoV-2 decreased compared to placebo. 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash and placebo had no significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 viral titers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT): jRCTs031230566.

Are protective measures against Covid-19 still active in orthodontic practices? A cross-sectional online survey of French orthodontists three years on from the pandemic

PURPOSE

The Covid-19 epidemic has imposed profound changes on the practice of orthodontics. It was in this anxiety-inducing context that drastic measures were imposed on orthodontists. The main aim of this online survey is to highlight the measures that are still in place in French orthodontic practices three years after the emergence of the pandemic.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was distributed to French orthodontists from march to June 2023. The questionnaire, consisting of 32 questions, was divided into five sections covering habits before and after the pandemic, and the feelings of professionals.

RESULTS

In this survey 230 complete answers were recorded. Three years later, the daily pace had returned to its pre-crisis level. Disinfection and aeration times were still present (p < 0.001). Orthodontists maintained and generalized the use of protective glasses (p = 0.17) and visors (p < 0.001). The same was true for the FFP2 mask and its frequency of change, as well as rigorous hand washing. Finally, the dedicated layout of the practices was maintained: protective screen, filtration system, supply of SHA, travel paths, removal of magazines (for all, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the professional practices imposed by the Covid-19 crisis have been adopted by the majority of French orthodontists, and now appear to be anchored in their routine practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

opinion n°2023-004, dated 01.25.2023.

Virucidal activity of a plant-oil-based oral rinse against respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Respiratory viruses have been reported to infect the salivary glands and the throat, which are potential reservoirs for virus replication and transmission. Therefore, strategies to reduce the amount of infective virus particles in the oral mucous membranes could lower the risk of transmission.

METHODS

The viral inactivation capacity of a plant-oil-based oral rinse (Salviathymol®) was evaluated in comparison with chlorhexidine (Chlorhexamed® FORTE) using a quantitative suspension test according to EN 14476.

FINDINGS

Salviathymol efficiently inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and two influenza strains to undetectable levels.

CONCLUSION

Salviathymol has potential as preventive measure to lower transmission of respiratory viruses.

Cetylpyridinium chloride and chlorhexidine show antiviral activity against Influenza A virus and Respiratory Syncytial virus in vitro

BACKGROUND

The oral cavity is the site of entry and replication for many respiratory viruses. Furthermore, it is the source of droplets and aerosols that facilitate viral transmission. It is thought that appropriate oral hygiene that alters viral infectivity might reduce the spread of respiratory viruses and contribute to infection control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here, we analyzed the antiviral activity of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), chlorhexidine (CHX), and three commercial CPC and CHX-containing mouthwash preparations against the Influenza A virus and the Respiratory syncytial virus. To do so the aforementioned compounds and preparations were incubated with the Influenza A virus or with the Respiratory syncytial virus. Next, we analyzed the viability of the treated viral particles.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that CPC and CHX decrease the infectivity of both the Influenza A virus and the Respiratory Syncytial virus in vitro between 90 and 99.9% depending on the concentration. Likewise, CPC and CHX-containing mouthwash preparations were up to 99.99% effective in decreasing the viral viability of both the Influenza A virus and the Respiratory syncytial virus in vitro.

CONCLUSION

The use of a mouthwash containing CPC or CHX alone or in combination might represent a cost-effective measure to limit infection and spread of enveloped respiratory viruses infecting the oral cavity, aiding in reducing viral transmission. Our findings may stimulate future clinical studies to evaluate the effects of CPC and CHX in reducing viral respiratory transmissions.