Ingredients in Commercially Available Mouthwashes

OBJECTIVES

Mouthwashes, a cornerstone of oral and dental hygiene, play a pivotal role in combating the formation of dental plaque, a leading cause of periodontal disease and dental caries. This study aimed to review the composition of mouthwashes found on retail shelves in Turkey and evaluate their prevalence and side effects, if any.

METHODS

The mouthwashes examined were sourced from the 5 largest chain stores in each district of Istanbul. A comprehensive list of the constituents was meticulously recorded. The research was supported by an extensive compilation of references from scholarly databases such as Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. Through rigorous analysis, the relative proportions of mouthwash ingredients and components were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 45 distinctive variations of mouthwashes, representing 17 prominent brands, were identified. Amongst the 116 ingredients discovered, 70 were evaluated for potential adverse effects and undesirable side effects. The aroma of the mouthwash (n = 45; 100%), as welll as their sodium fluoride (n = 28; 62.22%), sodium saccharin (n = 29; 64.44%), sorbitol (n = 21; 46.6%), and propylene glycol (n = 28; 62.22%) content were the main undesireable features.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited array of mouthwashes found on store shelves poses a concern for both oral and public health. Furthermore, the intricate composition of these products, consisting of numerous ingredients with the potential for adverse effects, warrants serious attention. Both clinicians and patients should acknowledge the importance and unwarranted side effects of the compnents of the mouthwashes.

Efficacy of mouthwash on reducing salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load and clinical symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a short distance, with infected individuals releasing large amounts of aerosols when speaking and coughing. However, there is an open question regarding whether mouthwash could effectively reduce virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic and support the prevention of infection among medical workers.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception of each database to January 12, 2023 for currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of mouthwash on novel coronavirus load in the oral cavity in COVID-19 patients. The treatment group received mouthwash for rinsing the mouth, while the control group received a placebo or distilled water for COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were CT value and viral load. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to minimize the bias and the impact of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs were included. Seven studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the CT value of novel coronavirus. The analysis results showed that the mouthwash group had a positive impact on the CT value of novel coronavirus [ SMD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.21, 0.50)] compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed a significant positive effect of mouthwash on CT values in the treatment group compared with the control group, with chlorhexidine (CHX) [SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (0.10, 0.56)], povidone-iodine (PVP-I) [SMD = 0.61, 95% CI (0.23, 0.99)], or hydrogen peroxide (HP) [SMD = 1.04, 95% CI (0.30, 1.78)] as an ingredient of the mouthwash. Six studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the viral load, 263 cases in the treatment group and 164 cases in the control group. The analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference between the mouthwash group and the control group in the viral load of novel coronavirus [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.05)]. In the subgroup analysis by measurement time, there were statistically significant differences between the mouthwash and control groups for CT values [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.72)] and viral load [SMD =  - 0.32, 95% CI (- 0.56, - 0.07)] within 30 min of gargling.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, mouthwash has some efficacy in reducing the viral load of novel coronavirus, especially within 30 min after rinsing the mouth. Mouthwash containing CHX, PVP-I and HP all had significant positive effects on CT values, and PVP-I-containing mouthwash may be a promising option to control novel coronavirus infections and relieve virus-related symptoms. However, studies on the dose and frequency of use of mouthwash for infection control are still lacking, which may limit the clinical application of mouthwash.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023401961).

Potential therapeutic effects of different mouthwashes for alleviation and treatment of oral complications of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy in patients with colon cancer

OBJECTIVE

The primary endpoint of the present study was to assess the potential therapeutic effects of three different mouthwashes for alleviation and treatment of oral complications (OCs). The secondary endpoint was to assess patients' perceptions and daily functional activities after therapy of OCs in patients with colon cancer receiving 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy regimens.

METHODS

A prospective, randomised controlled study carried out on 90 patients with colon cancer eligible for 5-FU-based chemotherapy regimens at the oncology centre, Istanbul, Turkey. Patients were randomly randomised into three groups (30 patients in each group) and received a single mouthwash. The first group (group A) received benzydamine at a dose of 15 mL; the second group (group B) received sodium bicarbonate at a dose of 1.2-2.4 g in 240 mL of water; and the third group (group C) received glutamine suspension 10 g. Patients were assessed for the occurrence of oral complications based on the WHO scale for oral mucosa evaluation and National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Oral pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale alongside assessment of patients' perceptions and daily functional activities based on the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 119 oral complications were reported, including mouth dryness (n=56, 47.1%), oral mucositis (n=31, 26.1%) and oral pain (n=32, 26.8%). At the end of the study, patients of group A and group B significantly suffered from mouth dryness (p=0.0001), oral mucositis (p=0.029) and oral pain (p=0.039) compared with patients in group C. Although there was no significant change, group C patients showed a slight improvement in psychological discomfort, activity levels and quality of life at the end of the study.

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that benzydamine and sodium bicarbonate mouthwashes were significantly less effective for the alleviation and treatment of oral complications compared with glutamine among patients with colon cancer receiving 5-FU-based chemotherapy regimens.

Literature review of aggregated evidence (umbrella review) on the allergy potential of chlorhexidine mouthrinse solutions

OBJECTIVE

Chlorhexidine is the gold standard for chemical biofilm control in dentistry. As with all therapeutic agents, side effects should be considered, which may include allergic reactions. The present review focused on the allergy-causing potential of dental CHX mouthrinses.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Four databases were searched for systematic reviews related to chlorhexidine and dentistry (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus). Original papers available in the identified studies and meta-analyses were individually screened for allergy by both authors.

RESULTS

An initial 804 studies were identified, of which 46 systematic reviews and the original papers described therein were ultimately analyzed. Only two reviews explicitly addressed the topic of allergy. In a total of 194 original studies and a total of 9,698 patients, no allergies were reported. In 44 control studies, the topic was touched upon, but only in connection with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and possible contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

The topic of "allergy" regarding chlorhexidine application as a mouth rinse in dentistry seems to be omnipresent. Nevertheless, true allergies to chlorhexidine in dentistry appear to be low to nonexistent. Precautions, however, should still be taken in practice and further studies should be envisaged, especially in patients with an alleged history of chlorhexidine contact allergy. (Quintessence Int 2022;53:808-814; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b2841913 based on an original publication (in German) in Parodontologie 2022;33(1):59-69).

The efficacy of henna (Lawsonia inermis L.) mouthwash versus chlorhexidine gluconate 0.2% mouthwash as adjuvant therapy of oral lichen planus: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

In modern medicine, some traditional remedies are introduced to be effective in treatment. Accordingly, the henna plant (Lawsonia inermis L.) is studied more than before. Previous studies have shown many medical properties for henna, such as anti-inflammatory and anti-fungal properties.

AIM OF THE STUDY

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a common mucocutaneous disease with chronic immunomodulatory disruptions. Topical corticosteroids are the first line of OLP treatment. Previous studies have suggested different adjunctive therapies for preventing the side effects of corticosteroids overuse. This study aimed to compare the effects of henna and chlorhexidine mouthwashes as adjunctive therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled study was conducted on forty OLP patients. Luteolin content was determined in Henna mouthwash composed of 2% aqueous extract of henna, 2% ethanol, 10% glycerol, and 0.1% methylparaben distilled water. Henna or chlorhexidine mouthwashes were prescribed twice daily as an adjuvant to the topical corticosteroid treatment. Visual analog scale (VAS) index and Thongprasom rating were used to measure pain intensity and clinical signs of patients at days 0,7, and 14. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 26.0; SPSS). Ordinal logistic regression was used to investigate the effect of independent variables on Thongprasom and VAS scores.

RESULTS

In this clinical trial, 82.6% of the participants were women. There was no difference between the two study groups in terms of VAS scores (p = 0.404) and clinical features (p = 0.305) in the second follow-up visit. All drug regimens caused clinical signs and symptoms relief.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between the groups receiving topical corticosteroid supplementation, neither henna mouthwash nor chlorhexidine mouthwash. The therapeutic effects of henna mouthwash in the main or adjuvant treatment of OLP need more evaluation in future research. Henna mouthwash can be a good alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash if no side effects are reported.

Mouthwash Use and the Risk of Oral, Pharyngeal, and Laryngeal Cancer. A Meta-Analysis

Objective: The main aim of this study was to test whether the use of mouthwash is associated with subtypes of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and to test the potential risk of SCCHN depending on the mouthwash use duration, frequency, or alcoholic content. Materials and methods: We performed a meta-analysis using Web of Science and Scopus databases to detect the risk change associated with mouthwash use depending on the alcohol content, duration and frequency of use, and anatomical location. We used a random-effects model with the Sidik–Jonkman estimator for effect size model measures. Results: We included 17 studies in the meta-analysis containing 17,085 cases and 20,032 controls. The risk difference for SCCHN between mouthwash users and non-users was minimal, with a value of −0.02 [−0.05, 0.01]. Alcoholic mouthwash use was associated with a minimal decrease in risk (of −0.01 [−0.07, 0.05]). Frequent usage of mouthwash was associated with a statistically significant risk increase for SCCHN but the risk increase was marginal (0.04, [0.01, 0.06]). Conclusions: Overall, our study failed to show a statistically significant correlation between mouthwash use and the risk of SCCHN. The only statistically significant correlation that we could identify was between frequent usage and SCCHN, potentially caused by prolonged contact between some constituents of mouthwash (possibly alcohol) and the oral epithelium.

Preventive effect and safety of Chinese herbal medicine mouthwash in chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Oral mucositis (OM), one of the most common side effects for cancer patients who have undergone chemotherapy, can cause severe impairment to patients' functional ability and impact their quality of life, resulting in delayed and/or incomplete treatment. Traditional Chinese medicine offers empirical herbal decoctions to gargle for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced OM; however, evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is lacking. Therefore, we provide a protocol to evaluate the preventive effect and safety of Chinese herbal medicine mouthwash in chemotherapy-induced OM.

METHODS

We will comprehensively retrieve relevant articles published till August 15, 2020, in the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database, and the Wan-fang Database. Only randomized controlled trials will be included. We will use the criteria provided by the Cochrane Handbook for quality assessment and risk assessment of the included studies and use the RevMan 5.3 software for meta-analysis of the preventive effect and safety.

RESULTS

This study will assess the preventive effect and safety of Chinese herbal medicine mouthwash in chemotherapy-induced OM.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review will provide evidence-based medical corroboration for the clinical application of the Chinese herbal medicine mouthwash in chemotherapy-induced OM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020206614.

Use of antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays by healthcare workers to protect them when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of HCWs are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help reduce the risk of active infection being passed from infected patients to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves, or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose. Understanding these possible side effects is particularly important when the HCWs are otherwise fit and well.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays used by healthcare workers (HCWs) to protect themselves when treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

SEARCH METHODS

Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: RCTs; quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to HCWs, with or without the same intervention being given to the patients with COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) viral content of aerosol, when present (if intervention administered to patients); 4) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 5) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified three ongoing studies (including two RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 700 participants. The interventions included in these trials are povidone iodine, nitric oxide and GLS-1200 oral spray (the constituent of this spray is unclear and may not be antimicrobial in nature).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by two RCTs and a non-randomised study. We are concerned that only one of the ongoing studies specifically states that it will evaluate adverse events and it is not clear if this will include changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular, where those receiving the intervention are otherwise fit and well, it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays to protect healthcare workers when undertaking aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. The risks of transmission of infection are greater when a patient is undergoing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP). Not all those with COVID-19 infection are symptomatic, or suspected of harbouring the infection. If a patient who is not known to have or suspected of having COVID-19 infection is to undergo an AGP, it would nonetheless be sensible to minimise the risk to those HCWs treating them. If the mouth and nose of an individual undergoing an AGP are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may be a simple and safe method of reducing the risk of any covert infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. Alternatively, the use of antimicrobial solutions by the HCW may decrease the chance of them acquiring COVID-19 infection. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to HCWs and/or patients when undertaking AGPs on patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

SEARCH METHODS

Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered to the patient or HCW before and/or after an AGP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs or patients; 2) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 3) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 4) change in COVID-19 viral load at site(s) of irrigation; 5) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 6) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no completed studies to include in this review.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review, nor any ongoing studies. The absence of completed studies is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. However, we are disappointed that this important clinical question is not being addressed by ongoing studies.

Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them.

SEARCH METHODS

Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020.  SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies.   We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.

Over-the-counter mouthwash use, nitric oxide and hypertension risk

Purpose: Mouthwash is used by a large population. Short-term clinical trials have shown that antibacterial mouthwash deplete oral nitrate-reducing bacteria, and decrease systemic nitric oxide bioavailability. Our previous publication from the San Juan Overweight Adults Longitudinal Study (SOALS) was the first to show frequent over-the-counter mouthwash use was independently associated with increased risk of prediabetes/diabetes. This manuscript evaluates whether over-the-counter mouthwash was associated with increased risk of hypertension.Materials and methods: SOALS recruited 40-65 year old overweight/obese individuals; baseline evaluations started in 2011 and the 3-year follow-up exam was completed by 2016. From the 1028 participants (76%) who completed follow-up, we excluded people with reported physician diagnosis of hypertension or systolic or diastolic BP at or above the hypertension cut-offs (n = 481), missing smoking (n = 1), missing physical activity (n = 1) and missing alcohol intake (n = 5) at baseline; 540 participants were included. The primary exposure was mouthwash use twice daily or more. The primary outcome for this manuscript is self-reported physician-diagnosed hypertension over the follow-up. We used Poisson regression controlling for age, sex, smoking, physical activity, waist circumference, alcohol intake, systolic blood pressure, pre-diabetes/diabetes status and cardiac medication use. We additionally evaluated other mouthwash use categorizations.Results: Twelve percent (66/540) developed hypertension over follow-up. People who used mouthwash twice/day or more had higher incidence of hypertension compared to less frequent users (Incidence Rate Ratio = 1.85; 95% Confidence Interval: 1.17, 2.94), and compared to non-users (IRR = 2.17; 95% CI: 1.27, 3.71). Several additional potential confounders evaluated did not impact these associations. Associations persisted among never smokers. Additional outcomes including BP assessed at a single study visit did not show associations.Conclusion: In this study, frequent regular use of over-the-counter mouthwash was associated with increased risk of hypertension, independent of major risk factors for hypertension and several other potential confounders.

Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Consumer safety (SCCS) - Final opinion on water-soluble zinc salts used in oral hygiene products

The SCCS has estimated that exposure to water-soluble zinc salts via toothpaste and mouthwash at the concentrations of 1 and 0.1%, respectively, may lead to a daily intake level of 3.54 mg for adults and children aged 6-17 years. This exposure constitutes between 14 and 35% of the Upper Limit (UL) for these age groups. Therefore, the SCCS considers that the use of zinc in toothpaste and mouthwash per se is safe for adults and children aged 6-17 years. The SCCS has estimated that exposure to water-soluble zinc salts via toothpaste at the concentrations of 1% may lead to a daily intake level of 1.0-2.00 mg for children aged 0.5-5 years. This exposure constitutes between 10 and 29% of the UL for this age group. Therefore, the SCCS considers that the use of zinc in toothpaste per se is safe for children aged 0.5-5 years. Exposure to zinc may also occur from sources other than oral hygiene products. An important source of zinc in the population is the diet. This assessment has not taken into account the daily dietary intake of zinc. The dietary zinc intake (estimated by EFSA in 2014) ranges from 6.8 to 14.5 mg/day in adolescents aged 10 to < 18 years, from 5.5 to 9.3 mg/day in children aged 3 to < 10 years and from 4.6 to 6.2 mg/day in children aged 1 to <3 years. Therefore, exposure to zinc via the diet may already exceed or be close to exceeding the upper limits of 18, 13, 10 and 7 mg/day for the age groups 11-14, 7-10, 3-7 and 1-3 years, respectively. Any additional source of exposure, including cosmetics, may lead to exceeding the upper limits for children. The SCCS cannot advise which portion of the upper limit should be allocated to exposure from cosmetic products. When assessing exposure to chemicals, allocation factors that reflect a reasonable level of exposure while still being protective may be applied. For exposure via toys or drinking water, for example, allocation factors of 10% or 20% of the reference value may be considered as safe. In the case of zinc, the use of 1% in toothpaste and 0.1% in mouthwash constitutes between 10 and 35% of the upper limit depending on the age group. The SCCS is aware that upper limits may be exceeded in some cases because the default values used in this Opinion are based on conservative estimates.

Effect of different mouthwashes on discoloration of plaque-free tooth surfaces

PURPOSE

To evaluate the tooth discoloration effect of the daily use protocol of six different mouthrinses.

METHODS

70 extracted caries-free central incisors were divided into seven groups (n=10/per group) : Group 1: Curasept Anti Discoloration System; Group 2: CB12; Group 3: Listerine Zero; Group 4: Listerine Cool Mint; Group 5: Colgate Plax; Group 6: Kloroben. The teeth were exposed to the mouthrinse for 2 minutes daily for 3 weeks. Color measurement was performed four times: at the beginning of the study, and after 1, 2 and 3 weeks, with a digital spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade Advanced). Color changes (ΔE) were calculated and ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Although there was no statistically significant difference between the Colgate Plax and control groups, both groups had a significant difference from the other groups within all ΔE1, ΔE2 and ΔE3 values.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Among the mouthrinses tested, Listerine Cool Mint group exhibited the most tooth discoloration, while Colgate Plax demonstrated the least noticeable color change.

An in vitro Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets after Mouth Rinse

AIMS

The aim of the study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets after mouth rinsing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty orthodontically extracted maxillary premolar teeth were used in the present study. Buccal surfaces of all the teeth were bonded with orthodontic bracket. Later, each tooth was embedded into acrylic resin and stored in distilled water. All the teeth were randomly divided into four groups (group I: Artificial saliva, group II: Alcohol mouth rinse- Listerine, group III: Chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth rinse-Hexidine, and group IV: Herbal mouth rinse-Befresh) and stored in each solution for 12 hours. Later, each tooth was subjected to SBS testing using universal testing machine. Brackets and enamel surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope at 10* magnification for modified adhesive remnant index (ARI). The data were statistically evaluated using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics for Windows, version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) and using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Chi-square test with significance of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Highest mean SBS was observed in artificial saliva control group (14.27 ± 0.52 MPa), followed by herbal Befresh group (11.14 ± 0.72 MPa) and CHX, and least was found in alcohol-Listerine group of 8.48 ± 0.52 MPa (p < 0.001). The ARI score showed highest bond failure for group I (ARI 14) compared to group II (ARI 11) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Alcohol-containing mouth rinses should be avoided in patients during fixed orthodontic treatment because it affects the bond strength.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Shear bond strength is affected with the use of alcohol-based mouth rinse compared with herbal or CHX mouth rinses.

Potential erosive effect of mouthrinses on enamel and dentin

This in vitro study measured the pH values, titratable acidity (TA), and erosive potential of commercially available mouthrinses. A pH analysis of 6 mouthrinses (Listerine Total Care, Listerine Ultraclean, Listerine Original, Crest Pro-Health, Scope Classic, and ACT Total Care) was performed using a calibrated pH meter, and the neutralizable acidity was measured by titrating the mouthwashes against 0.1 M of sodium hydroxide. A gravimetric analysis was performed by submerging human enamel and dentin specimens in 5 mL of each mouthrinse for a total of 2 weeks. Specimens were weighed on a calibrated analytical balance at baseline, 24 hours, 48 hours, 96 hours, 1 week, and 2 weeks, and finally the loss of mass was calculated. The differences in erosive potential among the 6 mouthrinses were verified using nonparametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann- Whitney). The level of significance was set at 0.05. The mouthrinses were found to have the following mean pH/ TA values: Crest Pro-Health, 7.05/0.00; ACT Total Care, 6.31/5.44; Scope Classic, 5.18/0.42; Listerine Original, 3.98/9.26; Listerine Total Care, 3.43/5.88; and Listerine Ultraclean, 3.87/10.36. A significant correlation between pH and TA was observed for this dataset (P > 0.0001). No statistically significant difference in enamel loss among the groups was observed (P = 0.0631). However, a significant difference in dentin loss was observed among the 6 mouthrinses (P = 0.0011). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that some mouthrinses have a pH lower than the critical pH of enamel and dentin. There is a significant association between acidic pH values and higher TA. Some of the tested mouthrinses presented an erosive potential on dentin.

Effects of Compounded Stanford Modified Oral Rinse (MucoLox) on the Survival and Migration of Oral Keratinocytes and Fibroblasts: Implications for Wound Healing

Several oral rinses are commercially available to alleviate the symptoms of oral mucositis. Prolonged retention of active pharmaceutical ingredients in the oral cavity is a major problem. In this study, we modified the Stanford oral rinse by including a proprietary mucoadhesive polymer called MucoLox, which we hypothesized would improve active pharmaceutical ingredient mucoadhesion. Characterization of this newly compounded oral rinse showed absence of cytotoxicity in human oral keratinocyte and fibroblast cell lines. The compounded formulation significantly stimulated the migration of these two cell lines in Oris Cell Migration Assay plates, better than the reference commercial product Magic mouthwash. Based on this in vitro study, the new Stanford modified oral rinse with MucoLox is safe and may promote healing of oral mucositis.

Oral hygiene in intensive care unit patients with photodynamic therapy: study protocol for randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In intensive care units (ICUs), nosocomial infections are prevalent conditions and they have been related to high mortality indexes. Some studies have suggested that inefficient oral hygiene and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are related. Nowadays, in the Brazilian public health system there is no well-defined protocol for oral hygiene in an ICU. Due to the drawbacks of the use of antibiotics, photodynamic therapy (PDT) has emerged as an interesting technique in order to reduce antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. Methylene blue (MB) is the most common chemical agent for PDT in Brazil. However, new formulations for improved effectiveness are still lacking. The objective of this study is to evaluate the use of an MB mouthwash as an effective oral-hygiene procedure in an ICU and to show that oral hygiene using PDT with MB mouthwash may reduce VAP frequency to rates similar to, or higher than, chlorhexidine.

METHODS

Phase 1 will evaluate the most effective cleaning procedure, while phase 2 will correlate oral hygiene to VAP incidence. At the start of phase 1, the ICU patients will be randomly allocated into three different groups (10 patients/group): the efficacy of chlorhexidine, classical MB-PDT, and mouthwash MB-PDT will all be measured for the quantification of viable bacteria, both pre- and post-treatment, by a Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR). In phase 2, the most effective procedure found in phase 1 and a mechanical cleaning with filtered water will be carried out daily, once a day, over 5 days, with a total of 52 ICU patients randomly allocated into the two groups. The clinical records will be evaluated in order to find any pneumonic diagnoses.

DISCUSSION

Since a variety of bacterial species are related to VAP, a universal primer for bacteria will be used in order to quantify the total bacteria count in the participants' samples. In order to quantify only the living bacteria before DNA extraction, the samples will be treated with propidium monoazide. This will infiltrate the dead bacteria and will intercalate the DNA bases, avoiding their DNA amplification. This will be the first trial to evaluate MB-PDT in a mouthwash formula that can increase the effectiveness due to the control of MB aggregation. The results of this study will be able to generate an easy and low-cost protocol to be used in an ICU for the Brazilian public health system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Conjunto Hospitalar do Mandaqui (1.317.834, CAAE: 49273515.9.3001.5551) and it was registered in Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (ReBEC number: RBR-94bvrc;). First received: 12 July 2015; 1st version 6 June 2016. Data will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health

BACKGROUND

Dental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It is characterised by redness and swelling of the gingivae (gums) and a tendency for the gingivae to bleed easily. In susceptible individuals, gingivitis may lead to periodontitis and loss of the soft tissue and bony support for the tooth. It is thought that chlorhexidine mouthrinse may reduce the build-up of plaque thereby reducing gingivitis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the control of gingivitis and plaque compared to mechanical oral hygiene procedures alone or mechanical oral hygiene procedures plus placebo/control mouthrinse. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without the use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment.To determine whether the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse is influenced by chlorhexidine concentration, or frequency of rinsing (once/day versus twice/day).To report and describe any adverse effects associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use from included trials.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 28 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 September 2016); and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 28 September 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for at least 4 weeks on gingivitis in children and adults. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment. We included trials where participants had gingivitis or periodontitis, where participants were healthy and where some or all participants had medical conditions or special care needs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where feasible. For continuous outcomes, we used means and standard deviations to obtain the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined MDs where studies used the same scale and standardised mean differences (SMDs) where studies used different scales. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. Due to anticipated heterogeneity we used random-effects models for all meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 studies that analysed a total of 5345 participants. One study was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias, with the remaining 50 being at high risk of bias, however, this did not affect the quality assessments for gingivitis and plaque as we believe that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Gingivitis After 4 to 6 weeks of use, chlorhexidine mouthrinse reduced gingivitis (Gingival Index (GI) 0 to 3 scale) by 0.21 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31) compared to placebo, control or no mouthrinse (10 trials, 805 participants with mild gingival inflammation (mean score 1 on the GI scale) analysed, high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was found for reducing gingivitis at 6 months. There were insufficient data to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 (moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation). Plaque Plaque was measured by different indices and the SMD at 4 to 6 weeks was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.90) standard deviations lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 trials, 950 participants analysed, high-quality evidence), indicating a large reduction in plaque. A similar large reduction was found for chlorhexidine mouthrinse use at 6 months. Extrinsic tooth staining There was a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 4 to 6 weeks. The SMD was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.34) standard deviations higher (eight trials, 415 participants analysed, moderate-quality evidence) in the chlorhexidine mouthrinse group. There was also a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 7 to 12 weeks and 6 months. Calculus Results for the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on calculus formation were inconclusive. Effect of concentration and frequency of rinsing There were insufficient data to determine whether there was a difference in effect for either chlorhexidine concentration or frequency of rinsing. Other adverse effects The adverse effects most commonly reported in the included studies were taste disturbance/alteration (reported in 11 studies), effects on the oral mucosa including soreness, irritation, mild desquamation and mucosal ulceration/erosions (reported in 13 studies) and a general burning sensation or a burning tongue or both (reported in nine studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence from studies that reported the Löe and Silness Gingival Index of a reduction in gingivitis in individuals with mild gingival inflammation on average (mean score of 1 on the 0 to 3 GI scale) that was not considered to be clinically relevant. There is high-quality evidence of a large reduction in dental plaque with chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months. There is no evidence that one concentration of chlorhexidine rinse is more effective than another. There is insufficient evidence to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 indicating moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 4 weeks or longer causes extrinsic tooth staining. In addition, other adverse effects such as calculus build up, transient taste disturbance and effects on the oral mucosa were reported in the included studies.

Chemical burn to the gingiva after misuse of an over-the-counter oral whitening mouthwash

A well-recognized consequence of the use of tooth whitening gels and strips, particularly prescription strength formulations, is gingival irritation and tooth sensitivity. Limited information is available in the literature on the risk of gingival chemical burns associated with over-the-counter (OTC) oral whitening rinses. This case report details the development of gingival chemical burns consequent to misuse of a whitening rinse. The affected patient had rinsed for 30 seconds daily for 3-4 days but had failed to rinse with water after usage, as specified by the manufacturer. Within 2 weeks, successful resolution of the gingival injury was achieved through product withdrawal and saline rinses. Patients should be familiar with the manufacturer's designated instructions for OTC oral healthcare products and be advised to use them cautiously.

Vesiculo-erosive Oral Mucosal Disease—Management with Topical Corticosteroids: (2) Protocols, Monitoring of Effects and Adverse Reactions, and the Future

Although topical corticosteroids (TCs) are the most widely used drugs in oral medicine, and specifically in the treatment of vesiculo-erosive oral mucosal disease, there are few evidence-based data for the correct use of these drugs. In this review, we outline the most widely used protocols, the most common reasons for treatment failure, and the adverse effects documented in the literature.

Survey of topical oral solutions for the treatment of chemo-induced oral mucositis

Purpose. The objectives of this study were (1) to describe the usage of topical oral solutions in patients experiencing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (CIOM); and (2) to survey the care of oral mucositis provided to patients by clinical oncology pharmacists in institutional settings.

Methods. Surveys were distributed to institutional pharmacists in the US, who were asked to provide the components of their ‘magic mouthwash’. Other questions included whether an institutional mucositis management guideline is available and what is the involvement of clinical pharmacy in mucositis care.

Results. Forty institutions returned surveys during the study period. The top five ingredients used to compound the magic mouthwash are diphenhydramine, viscous lidocaine, magnesium hydroxide/aluminum hydroxide, nystatin and corticosteroids. Most institutions administer the mouthwash every 4 hours (36%) or every 6 hours (36%). Of the surveyed institutions, 33% currently possess guidelines for the management of CIOM.

Conclusions. Most institutions in the country formulate their topical solution, or magic mouthwash, with a variety of ingredients. There is a need to standardize the ingredients used to compound the magic mouthwash, in order to fully evaluate the efficacy of the solution to manage CIOM.

Mouthwashes: Do They Work and Should We Use Them? Part 1: Antiplaque Efficacy of Mouthwashes

This article will focus on the antiplaque efficacy of mouthwashes. An antiplaque agent inhibits the formation of plaque and also reduces gingivitis. There is good evidence that chlorhexidine digluconate, used in the correct concentrations, is the gold standard agent against which all others should be measured. It does, however, have some unwanted side-effects. One of the major problems for antiplaque mouthwashes is that they have a much reduced effect on established plaque within the oral environment. Although they can flow into the biofilm channels and kill bacteria in the superficial layers of dental plaque, they cannot penetrate the biomass and inhibit the pathogenic bacteria adjacent to the tooth surface and gingival margin. There is no evidence that they prevent the progression of periodontitis. Clinical relevance: The evidence supporting the use of ‘over the counter’ antiplaque mouthwashes is evaluated. This provides guidance for dentists and dental care professionals of when it is appropriate to recommend mouthwash use to their patients.

Evaluation of anti-aphthous activity of decoction of Nicotiana tabacum leaves as a mouthwash: a placebo-controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of decoction derived from the leaves of Nicotiana tabacum (L.) as a mouthwash on minor recurrent aphthous.

METHODS

A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients with minor recurrent aphthous. Treatment comprised of application of tobacco or placebo mouthwash (10 mL 3 times a day) for 5 days. Clinical evaluation included pain level using a visual analog scale and ulcer size on days 1, 3, and 5 were measured. Adverse effects after mouthwash application were recorded, and the oral mucosa was examined by the investigator at each visit.

RESULTS

A total of 54 subjects with the mean age (38 ± 10) years fulfilled the study. No minor and major adverse effects were observed. In the treatment group, ulcer pain score was decreased by 79.2% and 93.8% and ulcer size was reduced by 69.1% and 92.2% (days 3 and 5, respectively), which was significantly greater than the control group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The decoction prepared with of Nicotiana tabacum leaves, used as mouthwash are well-tolerated and safe, and can be used for the management of recurrent aphthous.

Analysis of Phone Calls Regarding Fluoride Exposure made to New Jersey Poison Control Center from 2010 to 2012

PURPOSE

The American Association of Poison Control Center's annual reports demonstrate that acute fluoride exposure is not an uncommon occurrence. Despite its prevalence, there has been little published research on the topic in the last 10 years. The purpose of this study was to calculate the incidence of acute fluoride toxicity and lethality as it occurs in New Jersey and provide a descriptive epidemiology of acute fluoride exposures.

METHODS

The study design was retrospective in nature. Records of phone calls made by individuals reporting excessive fluoride exposure (in an amount greater than directed/prescribed) to New Jersey's poison control center, known as Poison Information and Education System from the years 2010 through 2012, were extracted from Toxicall® (Computer Automatic Systems, Inc.) database. A total of 2,476 human-only exposure records met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Incidence rates were calculated, and population characteristics, circumstances and medical outcomes of acute fluoride exposure cases were assessed and categorized.

RESULTS

A total of 2,476 phone call records met the inclusion criteria. The fluoride exposures reported were from toothpaste with fluoride (49%, n=1,214), mouth rinse with fluoride (21.6%, n=536), multivitamin with fluoride (21.4%, n=530) and pure fluoride (0.08%, n=199). Medically speaking, 94.75% of calls were asymptomatic cases (n=2,346), 4.24% were symptomatic (n=105) and 1.01% were informational inquiries (n=25). Adverse symptoms reported were mostly minor (83.9% of symptomatic cases, n=88) and moderate (16.1% of symptomatic cases, n=17). The age group 18 months to 3 years of age showed the highest incidence of acute fluoride exposure (53.2%, n=1,317). There was a slightly higher incidence of acute fluoride exposures among males (n=1,317) vs. females (n=1,159). Most incidences occurred in the home (93.1% of records, n=2,305) and occurred unintentionally (96.7%, n=2,394). Calls were mainly made by the subject's mother (67.5%, n=1,671).

CONCLUSION

Based on the data, there were no reports of lethality or toxicity due to acute fluoride exposure in New Jersey from 2010 through 2012. Symptomatic reports and informational inquiries were few. All adverse outcomes due to excessive fluoride intake were remedied with calcium as the antidote. Dental hygienists should educate patients on safety measures of fluoride-containing products and evaluate overall fluoride exposure prior to making recommendations. However, findings in this study suggest that levels of fluoride in available commercial products will not produce life-threatening events, even if taken in doses higher than recommended.

[Pregnancy and lactation period: Which antibiotic and rinsing solutions?]

The aim of this paper is to show aspects of dental treatment in pregnancy. The reader should gain security in the election of the proper drugs for antibiotic therapy and rinsing solutions. Antibiotics as penicillins are the first choice in case of dental infections in pregnancy. In allergic patients, macrolides may be an alternative. Wound and mouth rinsing solutions containing chlorhexidine should be preferred in pregnancy. Ledermix(®) in endodontic treatment should be avoided in the pregnant woman. Solcoseryl(®) can be used for wound healing. Elective dental procedures should be postponed after delivery and after lactation period.

[Pregnancy and lactation period: Which antibiotic and rinsing solutions?]

The aim of this paper is to show aspects of dental treatment in pregnancy. The reader should gain security in the election of the proper drugs for antibiotic therapy and rinsing solutions. Antibiotics as penicillins are the first choice in case of dental infections in pregnancy. In allergic patients, macrolides may be an alternative. Wound and mouth rinsing solutions containing chlorhexidine should be preferred in pregnancy. Ledermix(®) in endodontic treatment should be avoided in the pregnant woman. Solcoseryl(®) can be used for wound healing. Elective dental procedures should be postponed after delivery and after lactation period.

Antibacterial mouthwash blunts oral nitrate reduction and increases blood pressure in treated hypertensive men and women

BACKGROUND

Endothelial nitric oxide (NO) is fundamental to cardiovascular health. Dietary nitrate and nitrate from endothelial derived NO metabolism provides a significant contribution to the circulating NO pool through the nitrate-nitrite-NO pathway. A critical step in this pathway is the reduction of nitrate to nitrite by the oral microbiota. We aimed to assess the effects of antibacterial mouthwash use on markers of nitrate-nitrite-NO metabolism and blood pressure in treated hypertensive men and women.

METHODS

Fifteen treated hypertensive men and women (mean age 65 years) were recruited to a randomized controlled cross-over trial. The effects of 3-day use of antibacterial mouthwash on oral nitrate to nitrite reduction, salivary and plasma nitrate and nitrite, plasma cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were compared to control (water).

RESULTS

Relative to control, 3-day antibacterial mouthwash use resulted in decreased oral nitrate to nitrite reduction (P = 0.02), decreased salivary nitrite (P = 0.01) and increased salivary nitrate (P < 0.001), and there was a trend toward a decrease in plasma nitrite concentration (P = 0.09). Use of antibacterial mouthwash over 3 days also resulted in higher systolic blood pressure (2.3mm Hg; 95% CI: 0.5, 4.0; P = 0.01), but not diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.4) or plasma cGMP (P = 0.7), relative to control.

CONCLUSIONS

Interruption of the nitrate-nitrite-NO pathway through the use of antibacterial mouthwash was paralleled by a small elevation of systolic blood pressure in treated hypertensive men and women.

Antiseptic mouthwashes could worsen xerostomia in patients taking polypharmacy

OBJECTIVE

Polypharmacy is a common cause of xerostomia. This study aimed to investigate whether xerostomia could be an adverse drug event of mouthwashes, when they are used for longer than 2 weeks by patients taking polypharmacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study included 120 hospitalized patients (60 middle-aged and 60 elderly patients), taking polypharmacy (≥4 drugs daily) and at risk of drug-induced xerostomia. Xerostomia was assessed by questioning participants.

RESULTS

A total of 62.5% of patients complained of xerostomia. In the middle-aged group (mean age=44.0 (8.7) years; 35.0% women) xerostomia seemed independently associated to mouthwashes, at the limit of significance (OR=5.00, 95% CI=0.99-25.3, p=0.052). Active principles in mouthwashes were mainly quaternary ammonium compounds (91.9%). Mouthwashes may disturb the healthy balance of the biofilm moisturizing the oral mucosa. The biofilm contains mucins, salivary glycoproteins with oligosaccharides side chains able to sequester water and endogenous bacteria surrounded by a glycocalyx. Oral bacteria are fully susceptible to quaternary ammonium (chlorhexidine, hexetidine, cetylpyridinium chloride) and to other antiseptics used in mouthwashes, such as betain, resorcin, triclosan, essential oils and alcohol. However, caregivers currently recommend such dental plaque control products to patients suffering from xerostomia in order to reduce the risk of caries and periodontitis.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first report that use of antiseptic mouthwashes for more than 2 weeks could worsen xerostomia in patients taking polypharmacy. Oral care protocols should avoid this iatrogenic practice, particularly when xerostomia alters the quality-of-life and worsens malnutrition.

Medication-related tooth discoloration: a review

Tooth discoloration is a common problem for which patients seek dental care. Various medications can directly or indirectly result in tooth discoloration. As clinicians, it is our responsibility to know these therapeutic drugs which can cause tooth discoloration and educate our fellow colleagues to take necessary precautions when prescribing these medications. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to give an overview of the various medications that can be linked to tooth discoloration and to suggest the precautionary measures that can be taken to avoid or minimize it. Clinical Relevance: Dental discoloration potential of medications always needs to be considered before prescribing them.

Cytogenetic analysis of oral mucosa cells, induced by chlorhexidine, essential oils in ethanolic solution and triclosan mouthwashes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate DNA damage and cytokinetic defects, proliferative potential and cell death caused by the frequent use of mouthrinses containing chlorhexidine, triclosan and essential oils in ethanolic solution, compared to a placebo mouthwash.

STUDY DESIGN

This double-blind, prospective, randomized clinical trial included 80 Caucasian patients. Subjects were divided into four groups: Group I used a mouthrinse, Triclosan; Group II used physiological saline; Group III used chlorhexidine; Group IV a mouthrinse with essential oils in ethanolic solution. All subjects used the mouthrinses for two weeks (15 ml, twice a day, rinsing for 30s). Two cell samples per subject were collected, before and after mouthrinse use (on day 0 and day 15). Samples were processed as follows: cell collection from cheeks with a cytobrush; cell centrifuge; slide preparation, fixation and staining; and fluorescent microscope analysis. 2000 exfoliated cells were screened for nuclear abnormalities, particularly the presence of micronuclei by means of cytome assay.

RESULTS

No significant differences between study times (before and after use of mouthwash) were identified for any of the variables studied (p>0.05). Differences between mouthrinse groups were also compared but no significant differences were found (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not observe any genotoxic effect resulting from mouthrinse use.

Gingival health benefits of essential-oil and cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinses: a 6-month randomized clinical study

PURPOSE

This randomized, single center, examiner-blind, controlled, parallel-group, 6-month clinical study compared the antiplaque/antigingivitis potential of an essential oil (EO) versus a 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)-containing mouthrinse. A 5% hydroalcohol solution was included as a control group.

METHODS

354 healthy volunteers (18-71 years of age) were enrolled in this clinical trial; 338 subjects completed the study. At baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-month visits, subjects received an oral examination, gingivitis (MGI), gingival bleeding (BI) and plaque assessments (PI). Following randomization, subjects received a prophylaxis and began brushing twice daily with the provided fluoride toothpaste and rinsing twice daily with 20 mL of the assigned mouthrinse for 30 seconds.

RESULTS

All rinses were well tolerated by the subjects, with the exception of extrinsic tooth stain complaints in 13 subjects in the CPC group between the 3- and 6-month exams. Statistically significant reductions in gingivitis, bleeding and plaque were observed for both EO and CPC at all post-baseline time-points when compared to the negative control. At 6 months MGI and PI were reduced by 42.6% and 42.0% for EO and by 17.1% and 13.9% respectively, for CPC vs. control. When compared to CPC, EO was statistically significantly superior at all post-baseline time-points. EO showed increasing reductions in MGI of 10.5%, 20.3% and 30.7% as well as reductions in PI of 12.7%, 23.7% and 32.6% at 1, 3 and 6 months, respectively. When analyzing the number of healthy sites (MGI scores of 0 or 1), the beneficial effect of the EO-containing mouthrinse is 45.8% greater than using a CPC-containing mouthrinse and 59.8% greater than placebo.

Antiseptic mouth rinses: an update on comparative effectiveness, risks and recommendations

PURPOSE

Antiseptic mouth rinses are widely recommended and marketed to improve oral health. This article summarizes current studies on the comparative effectiveness of selected antiseptic mouth rinses in controlling plaque and gingivitis, as well as risks associated with daily exposure, including salivary flow rate, oral cancer and wear of composite restorations.

METHODS

Electronic database searches were conducted using Google Scholar and PubMed to identify articles comparing the effectiveness of 4 commercially marketed antiseptic mouth rinses differing in active ingredients (0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, essential oils (menthol, thymol and eucalyptol) and methyl salicylate, 0.7% cetylpyridinium chloride and 20% aloe vera gel) for controlling plaque and gingivitis. Criteria for inclusion included controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews appearing in English language publications evaluating the comparative effectiveness of the mouth rinses in controlling plaque and gingivitis, as well as risks associated with daily usage.

RESULTS

The majority of studies have shown mouth rinses containing chlorhexidine gluconate or essential oils and methyl salicylate provide clinically significant anti-gingivitis and anti-plaque benefits. Cetylpyridinium chloride has been found to provide only limited clinical benefits compared to inactive control mouth rinse. Inadequate evidence is available to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of aloe vera gel. Chlorhexidine, essential oils and cetylpyridinium have been found to be safe. However, limited data are available on the effects of the mouth rinse on wear patterns of dental restorations. Studies reviewed reported no significant difference in salivary flow rate related to alcohol based mouth rinse.

CONCLUSION

Research supports the effectiveness of antiseptic mouth rinses in reducing plaque and gingivitis as an adjunct to home care. Insufficient evidence is available to support the claim that oral antiseptics can reduce the risk of developing periodontitis or the rate of progression of periodontitis.

The staining potential of various currently marketed mouthrinses

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this clinical trial were to determine the tooth staining potential as measured by the Macpherson Modification of the Lobene Stain Index, and degree of taste alteration of four currently marketed mouthrinses when used over a 12-week period.

METHODS

This investigation consisted of a 12-week, observer-blind, single-center, randomized comparison of five parallel groups of subjects. One-hundred and seventy-one subjects granting their informed consent completed the trial. Subjects were randomized to one of four currently marketed mouthrinses Crest PRO-HEALTH Rinse (CPH), Cēpacol (C), Scope (S), Viadent ADVANCED CARE (V), or brushing alone (BA) with a currently marketed fluoride toothpaste. Upon randomization, subjects received a baseline stain score and then a prophylaxis to remove all extrinsic stain. Clinical assessments were repeated after six weeks and three months of product use, and subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire after the first use, at day 4, day 14, at six weeks, and 12 weeks to assess potential taste alteration.

RESULTS

CPH and C demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) more extrinsic stain after six weeks of use, and CPH, C (p < 0.001), and S (p = 0.01) after 12 weeks of use versus brushing alone with fluoride toothpaste. V was not significantly different from brushing alone at either time point. After six weeks of using the product as directed, up to 53% of subjects using CPH experienced taste interference for up to three hours post-rinse.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrated that regular use of CPH and C mouthrinses resulted in extrinsic stain accumulation after six weeks, with increased accumulation after 12 weeks versus brushing alone.

Effectiveness of a mouthrinse containing active ingredients in addition to chlorhexidine and triclosan compared with chlorhexidine and triclosan rinses on plaque, gingivitis, supragingival calculus and extrinsic staining

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of three different mouthrinses--chlorhexidine, triclosan + sodium fluoride and chlorhexidine + triclosan + sodium fluoride + zinc chloride--on plaque, calculus, gingivitis and stains and to evaluate the occurrence of adverse effects with these three treatments.

METHODS

Forty-eight healthy subjects participated in a double-blind, randomized, parallel experiment and were randomly allocated to any one of the three experimental mouthrinses: group A (0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate), group B (0.03% triclosan + 0.025% sodium fluoride (NaF) + 12% ethyl alcohol) or group C (0.2% CHX + 0.3% triclosan + 0.3% NaF + 0.09% Zn chloride (ZnCl(2)). All the subjects were assessed for gingivitis, plaque, supragingival calculus and extrinsic stains at baseline and at the end of the 21-day experimental period.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference (P = 0.046) in the effectiveness for the prevention of gingivitis and plaque, with subjects of group A and group C presenting least and highest gingival and plaque scores, respectively. Significant differences (P = 0.03) were observed for the accumulation of supragingival calculus where the deposition of calculus in group A was nearly double that of the group B, and group B was most effective in the prevention of supragingival calculus. Highest deposition of extrinsic stains was in the group A followed by group C and group B. There was no significant difference between the three treatments for adverse events' occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

CHX mouthrinse was most effective in controlling plaque and gingivitis but caused greatest deposition of extrinsic stains. Supragingival calculus deposition was least in triclosan + NaF group followed by CHX + triclosan + NaF + ZnCl(2) and CHX. More than half of the subjects reported adverse events during the experimental phase.

[Treatment of halitosis with mouth rinsing agents containing essential oils]

The main reason for halitosis is the enhanced evaporable amount of sulphur compounds in the exhalation, which originates in the oral cavity due to local protein fission. Oral bacteria hydrolyze proteins and further degrade amino acids, which leads to halitosis. In an alkaline environment, many bacterial species found in the oral cavity with their enzymes participate in the degradation of proteins and formation of evaporable sulphur compounds. The presence of bacteria in the oral cavity is associated with different chronic inflammations in the soft tissues of the oral cavity. Mouth rinsing agents, which contain essential oils, ensure the renewal of a normal microbiota in the oral cavity, decreases the quantitative amount of bacteria and products released by proteolytic bacteria. Bad breath was confirmed by measurements made by a portable sulphide monitor or halimeter (Interscan Corporation, Model RH-17E USA). The halimeter quantifies breath measurements in parts-per-billion (ppb) of sulphur compounds. Halimeter measurements of patients showed increased levels of sulphur compounds. Oral mouthwashes containing essential oils possess a typical antimicrobial activity, apparently, they do not form resistant microorganism strains, and they do not cause allergic reactions.

Intraoral chemical burn from use of 3% hydrogen peroxide

Injudicious use of over-the-counter 3% hydrogen peroxide, a relatively potent oxidative agent, can result in a chemical burn to the oral mucosa. This article describes a patient who rinsed with 3% hydrogen peroxide for periods of more than two minutes as a self-prescribed remedy for oral discomfort following seafood ingestion. Subsequently, the patient experienced pain and extensive chemical burns of the sublingual and buccal mucosa and gingiva. In addition, the buccal mucosa underwent necrosis. Prolonged oral mucosal contact with 3% hydrogen peroxide is ill-advised.

A review of the role of alcohol in the pathogenesis of oral cancer and the link between alcohol-containing mouthrinses and oral cancer

This article will review the most recent literature on the effects of alcohol on the oral mucosa, and the possible mechanisms by which alcohol is thought to act as a carcinogen. The article will also consider the possible link between alcohol-containing mouthrinses and oral cancer. The authors recommend that the use of alcohol-containing mouthrinses in high-risk populations should be restricted, pending the outcome of further research.

Evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse-induced staining using a digital colorimeter: an in vivo study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the persistence of staining after the use of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Twenty-four subjects (nine women and 15 men) who underwent periodontal therapy and were prescribed the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse participated in this study. Color values of maxillary central incisors, canines, and first molars were recorded at baseline; 3 days; and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of twice-daily chlorhexidine gluconate use with a digital intraoral colorimeter according to the CIE L*a*b* coordinates.

RESULTS

While color-change (Delta E) values showed significant differences (P=.020) at different time points (10.1, 8.9, 8.9, 9.4, after 3 days and 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively), the duration of chlorhexidine gluconate use did not significantly affect the results (P=.873) (two-way ANOVA, Tukey test). No significant difference was found among Delta L* (P=.070), Delta a* (P=.169), and Delta b* (P=.691) values at any time point (one-way ANOVA). Measurements of baseline to day 3 differences showed significantly higher Delta E values than those at other time points (P<.05), but this change remained nonsignificant after 1, 2, and 3 weeks of chlorhexidine gluconate use (P>.05) (Tukey test). The highest visible staining occurred on the first molars at all time points (83%, 79%, 79%, and 96% after 3 days and 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively) compared to the other teeth evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The staining effect of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse on natural dentition should be expected to be the highest in the first few days of use.

Do active ingredients in non alcoholic chlorhexidine mouth wash provide added effectiveness? Observations from a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is the most tested and leading oral antiseptic agent. Zinc as an active ingredient has shown additive and synergistic effect and when Sodium fluoride (NaF) was used it failed to show added effectiveness and the combined effect of NaF and Zinc chloride (ZnCl2) both as active ingredients has never been evaluated. The present study assessed the effectiveness of active ingredients and to compare the frequency of adverse events occurring with traditional CHX and CHX+NaF+ZnCl2.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized double blind crossover trial was executed with 24 subjects participating in two consecutive experimental phases of 21 days each with CHX and CHX+NaF+ZnCl2 mouth rinses. Each individual was assessed for gingivitis, plaque, supragingival calculus and extrinsic stains at baseline and after experimental phase and adverse events experienced were recorded.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference (p = 0.014) between the two experimental mouth rinses for their effectiveness on gingivitis. In the CHX group, the gingival score on D21 was significantly greater by 0.13 than DO while with CHX+NaF+ZnCl2 there was a decrease in gingival score by 0.09 which was insignificant. No significant difference was observed between the interventions for plaque accumulation and formation of extrinsic stains. The difference in the mean calculus score at baseline and after experimental phase was 1.47 for CHX+NaF+ZnCl2 in contrast to 1.93 among CHX group. Oral itching, oral soreness, apthous ulcers and dryness were reported by many subjects while burning sensation was reported by very few volunteers. There was no significant difference for occurrence of adverse events between the two experimental mouthrinses.

CONCLUSIONS

CHX+NaF+ZnCl2 mouth rinse was found to be significantly more effective in the reduction of gingivitis and supragingival calculus. No significant difference was found for the occurrence of dental plaque, extrinsic stains and adverse events between the interventions.

[Update on side effects of alcohol-containing antiseptic mouthwashes]

Antiseptic mouthwashes are widely prescribed in odontostomatology. Also, they are increasingly integrated in routine oral hygiene programs. Graded ethanol is present in many of the available mouthwashes. This has continuously raised the concern about their safety and potential side effects of the alcohol in their composition. Alcohol was associated in many reports to cancers of the oral and pharyngeal region. Xerostomia was also suggested as a potential side effect of alcohol-containing mouthwashes. Although substantial evidence supports the association of ethanol to oral cancer, the supposed association lacks of consistency and scientific evidence. Future research is needed to determine the causal relationship of alcohol-containing mouthwashes and oral cancers. On the other hand, the benefit of alcohol in mouthwashes composition is not scientifically established.

Causes of oral cancer--an appraisal of controversies

Major risk factors for oral cancer are cigarette smoking and alcohol misuse. Among Asian populations, regular use of betel quid (with or without added tobacco) increases oral cancer risks. Dentists should be aware of some emerging risk factors for oral, and particularly oropharyngeal cancer such as the role of the human papillomavirus infection (HPV). Decreases in risk could be achieved by encouraging high fruit and vegetable consumption. Some controversies related to the aetiology of this disease also need clarification. The objective of this paper is to provide an opinion on these debated controversies.

"Alcohol use in mouthwash and possible oral health concerns"

OBJECTIVE

To establish the presence and quantify Ethanol in commercially available mouthwashes.

METHODS

Samples from twelve commercially available mouthwashes were tested for the presence of Ethanol followed by the estimation of percentage of Ethanol in five brands in Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (P.C.S.I.R) and Husein Ebrahim Jamal (H.E.J.) labs, Karachi.

RESULTS

Ten out of twelve brands of mouthwashes were found to be Ethanol positive.

CONCLUSION

Alcohol (Ethanol) in the mouthwashes does not contribute to any therapeutic action. It is alarming to find the presence of alcohol in the mouthwashes which claim to contain no alcohol.