Efficacy of povidone-iodine nasal rinse and mouth wash in COVID-19 management: a prospective, randomized pilot clinical trial (povidone-iodine in COVID-19 management).

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To assess the efficacy of 0.23% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) nasal rinses and mouth washes on detectability of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus and cycle threshold (Ct) values in nasopharyngeal swabs. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: The study was conducted in King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from August 2021 to July 2022. METHODS: Participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 were randomly assigned to one of three groups, with participants receiving either 0.23% PVP-I, 0.9% normal saline (NS) nasal rinses and mouth washes, or no intervention (control group). Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken 4, 8, 12, and 18 days after the first swab to measure the detectability of the virus and the Ct. RESULTS: A total of 19 participants were involved in this study. The mean viral survival was 9.8, 12, and 12.6 days for the PVP-I, NS, and control groups, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.046). The Ct mean values were 23 ± 3.4, 23.5 ± 6.3, and 26.3 ± 5.9 at the time of recruitment and 25.2 ± 3.5, 15 ± 11.7, and 26.9 ± 6.4 after 4 days for the PVP-I, NS, and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When used continuously at a concentration of 0.23%, PVP-I showed promising results in terms of decreasing the pandemic burden by reducing the period of infectiousness and viral load. However, the use of PVP-I did not result in significantly different changes in the quality-of-life parameters in recently vaccinated and mild COVID-19 patients.

Eligibility and efficacy of a CPC- and CHX-based antiviral mouthwash for the elimination of SARS-CoV-2 from the saliva: A randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.

AIM: This study aimed at investigating the efficacy of a 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride-0.05% chlorhexidine (CPC-CHX) mouthwash in reducing viral load in the saliva as compared with sterile water. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were asked to dispense 4 mL of saliva. Half the patients rinsed for 60 s with 15 mL CPC-CHX, and the remaining patients rinsed with sterile water (control). Four millilitres of saliva were collected after 15, 30 and 60 min after rinsing. Quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) specific for SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein were performed. For ELISA, the intact (representing the active virus) to total virus load (I/T) was calculated. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 copy numbers/mL from RT-qPCR tended to decrease in the control group, whereas in the CPC-CHX group, an increase was observed after T30. However, mixed linear model analysis revealed no statistical differences between groups (p = .124), time points (p = .616) and vaccinated or non-vaccinated patients (p = .953). Similarly, no impact of group (p = .880), time points (p = .306) and vaccination (p = .711) was observed for I/T ratio values. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this study, there was no evidence that the intervention reduced salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load during the course of 60 min. Therefore, commonly used pre-procedural rinsing might not be clinically relevant.

The Efficacy of Three Different Oral Hygiene Regimens in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis in Pediatric Patients Receiving Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is one of the side effects developed post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant. This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of a mouthwash mixture (lidocaine, sodium alginate, sucralfate, pheniramine) versus hyaluronic acid and a solution of sodium bicarbonate in terms of healing time and weight gain in the treatment of oral mucositis in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with hemato-oncological malignancies. METHODS: A total of 171 patients that received chemotherapy for the hematopoietic stem cell transplant were divided into three groups; group 1, treated with a mixed mouthwash of lidocaine, sodium alginate, sucralfate, and pheniramine; group 2, treated with hyaluronic acid; and group 3, treated with an aqueous solution of 5% sodium bicarbonate. Weight and mucositis scale scores derived from medical records of patients. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the mucositis scale scores between the groups on the transplant day and days 5, 10, 15 and 20 after the transplantation. At these measurement points, Group 2 (receiving hyaluronic acid) had a lower score, and Group 3 (who received sodium bicarbonate) had a higher score, especially on days 5 and 10 after the transplantation. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that hyaluronic acid is a more effective treatment option than the other oral care solutions that are frequently used for prophylaxis and treatment of oral mucositis.

Efficacy of natural enzymes mouthwash: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Natural enzymes mouthwash has been proposed as salivary substitutes to treat xerostomia. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the mouthwash to treat xerostomia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind, parallel group randomised control clinical trial involving N = 49 adult participants with xerostomia was carried out. Intervention group received natural enzymes moisturising mouthwash (with active ingredients lactoferrin, lysozyme, lactoperoxidase and glucose oxidase); while control group received benzydamine mouthwash. Mouthwashes were repacked, labelled with specific code, and were given to participants by third-party. Subjects were instructed to rinse with the mouthwash 4 times per day at a specific period, for 2 weeks. Symptoms of xerostomia were assessed using Xerostomia Inventory at day 0 and 14; together with the assessment of Clinical Oral Dryness Score (CODS), and measurement of resting and stimulated salivary flow rate. RESULTS: 48 participants completed the clinical follow-up, and n = 1 had lost of follow-up. From the 48 participants, n = 23 received natural enzymes mouthwash, while n = 25 received benzydamine mouthwash. Intervention group achieved reduction in symptoms of xerostomia from baseline. Intervention group also showed significantly better improvements in the cognitive perception of dry mouth and oromotor function such as chewing, swallowing and speech of the participants; and reduction in waking up at night to drink water (p < 0.05). The CODS and resting salivary flow rate were also significantly improved in intervention group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of natural enzymes mouthwash improved signs and symptoms of xerostomia. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Natural enzymes mouthwash is potentially effective to treat xerostomia, well-tolerated and safe to be used by xerostomia patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05640362 on 7 December 2022.

Early periodontal wound healing after chlorhexidine rinsing: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This single-center randomized, parallel design, clinical trial with a 2-week follow-up involved patients affected by periodontitis undergoing periodontal surgery. The aim was to evaluate periodontal surgical wound healing with the use of chlorhexidine-based mouth rinses versus an untreated control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Periodontal surgery was performed following a standardized protocol. Patients were randomly prescribed i) chlorhexidine (CHX) + anti-discoloration system (ADS) + hyaluronic acid (HA), ii) CHX + ADS or iii) no treatment (control group). Plaque score, gingival inflammation, and Early Healing Index (EHI), assessing the degree of wound closure and the presence of fibrin and necrosis, were evaluated at 3, 7 and 14 days after surgery. RESULTS: In total, 33 patients were enrolled. Patients were comparable at baseline for all measured clinical parameters. At 3-days wound healing was significantly improved in all patients treated with CHX + ADS-based mouth rinses with a lower EHI score at the interdental papillae compared with control group (p < 0.01). CHX + ADS + HA group presented improved healing across all time points in terms of EHI, plaque containment, and gingival inflammation when compared to control group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The usage of CHX-ADS following periodontal surgery improved early wound healing, reduced plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. During the early post-operative period the adjunct of HA further improved soft tissue closure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study aims at evaluating the response of gingival tissues to mouth rinsing with chlorhexidine and anti-discoloration system (CHX + ADS) or CHX + ADS + hyaluronic acid (CHX + ADS + HA) versus no rinse in terms of healing of the periodontal surgical wound. CHX + ADS mouth rinses enhanced early soft tissue closure after periodontal surgery and contributed to the reduction in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. The adjunct of HA may be beneficial especially in the early post-operative period. CHX + ADS administration following periodontal surgery may improve soft tissue healing in the first two post-operative weeks.

Comparative evaluation of propolis mouthwash with 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical therapy in improving the periodontitis among perimenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of Propolis mouthwash compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical therapy in improving clinical parameters in perimenopausal women with chronic periodontitis. METHODOLOGY: A double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted by recruiting 144 subjects with mild to moderate chronic periodontitis. After scaling and root planning, subjects were allocated to two treatment groups: 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash and 20% propolis mouthwash twice daily for six weeks. Clinical parameters such as pocket probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were analysed at baseline, six weeks, and 12 weeks. RESULT: The mean value of PPD in the propolis group was 4.67 at baseline, reduced to 4.01 at six weeks and 3.59 at 12 weeks. While in the chlorhexidine group, the baseline value of 4.65 reduced to 4.44 and 4.25 at six weeks and 12 weeks, respectively. The baseline value of the mean CAL in the propolis group was 4.45. This value was reduced to 4.15 at six weeks and 3.77 at 12 weeks. For the chlorhexidine group, the baseline value of CAL was 4.80, which was reduced to 4.50 and 4.19 at six weeks and 12 weeks. The mean value of bleeding on probing in the propolis group was 77.20, which decreased to 46.30 at six weeks and 14.60 at the final visit. In the chlorhexidine group, the mean value of 77.30 was reduced to 49.60 and 22.80 at subsequent visits. CONCLUSION: This study concludes that both propolis and chlorhexidine mouthwash positively improve clinical parameters; however, propolis is significantly more effective in improving BOP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ID: NCT05870059, Date of Registration: 02/02/2022. ( https://beta. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05870059 ).

Comparison of the effect of licorice and chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral health of intubated patients in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine mouthwash is a common oral hygiene product used in intensive care units, but it may have some adverse effects. Licorice, a natural herb, could be a potential alternative to chlorhexidine. However, the effect of licorice mouthwash on the oral health of intubated patients has not been studied yet. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of licorice and chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral health of intubated patients. METHODS: This was a triple-blind clinical trial. The sample included 130 intubated patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Iran. The samples were selected by convenience sampling and randomly assigned to two groups: A and B. In group A, the main researcher applied 15 ml of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash after each brushing (twice a day for 5.5 days) and suctioned it after 30 s. In group B, 20% licorice mouthwash was used instead of chlorhexidine. The demographic information questionnaire and the Beck Oral Assessment Scale (BOAS) were completed by one of the nurses before and on the sixth day of the study. RESULTS: Finally, 60 patients in each group completed the study. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic variables or oral health before the intervention (P > 0.05). The oral health of patients in both the chlorhexidine and liquorice mouthwash groups improved significantly after the intervention (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in oral health between the two groups at postintervention (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that both mouthwashes exerted a comparable effect on dental and oral health. However, the chlorhexidine mouthwash showed a greater impact on the reduction of dental plaque and the thinning of saliva compared to licorice mouthwash. In essential cases, licorice mouthwash can be employed as an alternative to chlorhexidine.

Assessment of a combined mouthwash on pain relief in pericoronitis: a randomized clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Pericoronitis, an inflammation near wisdom teeth, often occurs when they are partially emerged, especially in the lower jaw. Commonly, the gingiva partially envelops the tooth. Treatments vary from gingival surgery to extraction. This study assessed the efficacy of a mouthwash with Chlorhexidine, Benzydamine, Nanosilver, Amoxicillin, and Metronidazole for pain reduction and enhancement of maximum mouth opening in acute pericoronitis cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled clinical trial conducted at the Gorgan Dental Faculty, 48 pericoronitis patients were randomized into two groups. The control group used a 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash, while the case group used a mouthwash containing Chlorhexidine, Benzydamine, Nanosilver, Amoxicillin, and Metronidazole. The study recorded Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for 7 days, and Maximum mouth opening (MMO) was measured at the start and after 7 days. The analysis was performed using SPSS v20. RESULTS: In this study, we compared the effects of a combined mouthwash with those of a chlorhexidine mouthwash on pericoronitis in 48 patients, with an average age of 21.56 years. No significant difference in pain reduction was observed between the groups; however, both groups exhibited decreased pain and improved MMO post-treatment. The gender distribution was balanced across both groups. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that both chlorhexidine mouthwash and combined mouthwash significantly improved maximum mouth opening. Nonetheless, there were no notable differences in efficacy between the two groups. These findings suggest that these mouthwashes may be beneficial for oral hygiene, warranting further in-depth research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on 12/03/2023, registration number IRCT20230104057046N1.

Effect of propolis mouthwash on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care unit patients: a comparative randomized triple-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) increases the length of hospitalization and mortality rate. This study aimed to determine the effect of propolis mouthwash on the incidence of VAP in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Triple-blind, comparative randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted over one year, with 110 ICU patients at Imam-Hossein and Bahar hospitals (Shahroud) and Kowsar Hospital (Semnan) in Iran. The intervention group used 15 cc of 0.06% propolis mouthwash solution twice daily at 8 AM and 4 PM for seven days. The control group used 15 cc of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash at the same times and duration. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, APACHE II, Beck Oral Assessment Scale, and Modified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (MCPIS). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in demographic information, disease severity, and oral health between the two groups before and after intervention (P > 0.05). The incidence of VAP in the intervention group compared to the control group was 10.9% vs. 30.9% on the third day (P = 0.0166, 95% CI: 0.53-0.83 and RR = 0.35), 23.6% vs. 43.6% on the fifth day (P = 0.0325 and 95% CI: 0.31-0.95 and RR = 0.54), and 25.5% vs. 47.3% on the seventh day (P = 0.0224, 95% CI: 0.32-0.92, and RR = 0.54). The Mann-Whitney indicated the incidence of VAP was significantly lower in the intervention group on the third, fifth, and seventh days. CONCLUSION: Propolis mouthwash can be considered as an alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash for ICU patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Propolis mouthwash serves as a simple, economical intervention to potentially reduce incidence of VAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (IRCT20110427006318N12, date 02.04.2019).

Efficacy of flossing and mouth rinsing regimens on plaque and gingivitis: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the effects of combinations of mechanical (brushing and flossing) and chemotherapeutic regimens which included essential oils (EO) non-alcohol and alcohol-containing mouthrinses compared to brushing only in the prevention and reduction of plaque, gingivitis, and gingival bleeding. METHODS: This was a randomized, virtually supervised, examiner blind, controlled clinical trial. Following informed consent and screening, subjects (N = 270) with gingivitis were randomly assigned to one of the following regimens: (1) Brush Only (B, n = 54); (2) Brush/Rinse (EO alcohol-containing mouthrinse) (BA, n = 54); (3) Brush/Rinse (EO non-alcohol containing mouthrinse) (BZ, n = 54); (4) Brush/Floss (BF, n = 54); (5) Brush/Floss/Rinse (EO non-alcohol containing mouthrinse) (BFZ, n = 54). Unflavored waxed dental floss (REACH unflavored waxed dental floss), and fluoridated toothpaste (Colgate Cavity Protection) were used. Examinations included oral hard and soft tissue, plaque, gingivitis, gingival bleeding, probing depth and bleeding on probing. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, both BA and BZ and the BFZ group were superior in reducing interproximal plaque (30.8%, 18.2%, 16.0%, respectively), gingivitis (39.0%, 36.9%, 36.1%, respectively), and bleeding (67.8%, 73.6%, 79.8%, respectively) compared to B. The BF group did not provide significant reductions in interproximal plaque but did reduce interproximal gingivitis (5.1%, p = 0.041) at Week 4 and bleeding at Weeks 4 and 12 (34.6%, 31.4%, p < 0.001 respectively) compared to B. The BFZ group did not significantly reduce interproximal plaque, gingivitis or bleeding compared to BZ. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the addition of EO non-alcohol containing mouthrinse to the manual toothbrushing and flossing regimen further reduces plaque, gingivitis and bleeding showing that addition of EO mouthrinses (alcohol or non-alcohol containing) to the oral hygiene regimen provides sustained reductions in plaque to help maintain gingival health after a dental prophylaxis. Dental professional recommendation of the addition of an EO non-alcohol containing mouthrinse to daily oral hygiene routines of brushing or brushing and flossing should be considered to aid supragingival plaque control and improve gingivitis prevention. STUDY REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT05600231.

Use of over-the-counter mouthwashes as an additional measure in individual oral prophylaxis on adults with plaque-induced gingivitis: a double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Plaque-induced gingivitis is a chronic inflammatory condition characterized by complete reversibility of tissue damage once the periodontal biofilm has been disorganised. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of two commercially available mouthwashes (MWs) versus a chlorhexidine (CHX) 0.12% MW in reducing gingival bleeding (GB) in adults with plaque-induced gingivitis. METHODS: The present study was a double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial involving 6492 gingival sites (i.e. 39 subjects × 28 teeth × 6 sites/tooth) aged 18-75 years. During a 2-week period, subjects were randomized to receive MWs: a control CHX 0.12% MW (group C, 1818 sites); a MW test containing CHX 0.09% + Citrox®/P complex (group CX, 2628 sites); a MW test based on natural compounds (group P, 2016 sites). GB was assessed at the inclusion visit (T0) and after 2 weeks of MW use (T1). Analyses of GB were compared between groups and then restricted to subjects with bleeding sites between 10 and 30% (moderate gingivitis) or ≥ 30% (severe gingivitis) at T0. Pairwise comparisons were made between groups and logistic regression was used to identify correlates of GB (T1). RESULTS: For total bleeding site analysis, GB reduction between T0 and T1 ranged from 23% (C), 26% (CX) and 36% (P), respectively (all p < 0.05). Multiple comparison between groups showed that group C was significantly less effective (p < 0.05) than groups CX and P. Splitting the analysis, in patients with severe gingivitis (≥ 30% bleeding sites at T0), all MWs had a positive effect on GB with a reduction at T1 of 36% (C), 33% (CX) and 42% (P), respectively. While GB reduction between T0 and T1, was significant for all groups, the comparison among groups showed no significant difference between group C and CX, whereas the improvement was significant for group P. On the other hand, in adults with moderate gingivitis (< 30% bleeding sites at T0), only CX and P had a positive effect on GB reduction at T1(9% in CX and 2% in P, respectively), although the differences between the three groups were not significant. CONCLUSION: The daily use of MWs with natural components (groups P and CX) for 2 weeks should be considered positively as an adjunct to individual oral prophylaxis to reduce GB compared to the control MW containing CHX 0.12% (group C) in healthy adults with plaque-induced gingivitis. For subjects with severe gingivitis, it is advisable to first use natural MW (P) and then MW based on CHX 0.09% with natural components (CX), compared to MW with CHX 0.12% (C). For adults with moderate gingivitis, P and CX can be advisable, even if no definitive recommendations can be drawn. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000215729, 07/02/2022.

Clinical effect of chlorhexidine and sodium fluoride on corrosion behavior and surface topography of nitinol orthodontic archwires.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in the mechanical properties of the materials utilized in orthodontic appliances could affect the working properties of the appliances, thereby affecting clinical progress and outcome. Numerous studies have confirmed the correlation between alloy corrosion and raised surface roughness, which has a direct impact on the working characteristics of orthodontic archwires. METHODS: Thirty nickel-titanium (NiTi) orthodontic archwires were utilized in this study. Patients were randomly selected and allocated into three groups according to the randomization plan; (The control group): subjects practiced regular oral hygiene; (The fluoride group): subjects used fluoride for intensive prophylaxis; (The chlorhexidine group): subjects used chlorhexidine. Representative samples were evaluated by SEM, and then SEM images with high resolution were examined using Image J software to determine the surface roughness and obtain the results for further statistical analysis. RESULTS: Our findings indicated a significant difference was found between the three groups regarding the anterior and posterior parts between the control and the two other groups and a non-significant difference between NaF and CHX groups. Overall, the p-value for group comparisons was 0.000 for both parts, indicating a highly significant difference especially between the control and NaF groups. CONCLUSION: Mouthwashes containing sodium fluoride demonstrated more significant surface alterations than the control and CHX groups and should be prescribed in accordance with orthodontic materials to reduce side effects.

Rebamipide gargle and benzydamine gargle in prevention and management of chemo-radiotherapy and radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients (randomized clinical trial).

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the preventive and therapeutic effects of rebamipide gargle in comparison with benzydamine in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase III randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 2021 till August 2022 on one hundred patients with head and neck cancer receiving high doses of radiotherapy. These patients were equally allocated into either rebamipide group or benzydamine group, The measured outcomes were the incidence of oral mucositis ≥ grade1, according to the WHO mucositis scale, in addition to the duration, and the onset of oral mucositis. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, regarding the incidence of a severe grade of oral mucositis (WHO grades 3), as well as the onset and duration of oral mucositis. Both gargles succeeded to prevent the development of WHO grade 4 oral mucositis. Side effects reported were mainly burning sensation in benzydamine group and nausea in rebamipide group. CONCLUSION: Rebamipide mouthwash was as beneficial as benzydamine mouthwash in minimizing the incidence of severe oral mucositis induced by treatment of head and neck cancer. However, rebamipide gargle proved to be superior to benzydamine in terms of reduction in the severity of the radiation-induced oral mucositis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered in the protocol Registration and Result system of Clinical Trials (Registration ID: NCT04685395)0.28-12-2020.

Soluble CD44 in oral rinses for the early detection of cancer: a prospective cohort study in high-risk individuals.

BACKGROUND: There are 54,000 new cases of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer in the United States and more than 476,000 worldwide each year. Oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma make up most tumors with five-year survival rates of 50% due to prevalence of late-stage diagnoses. Improved methods of early detection in high-risk individuals are urgently needed. We aimed to assess the tumorigenic biomarkers soluble CD44 (solCD44) and total protein (TP) measured using oral rinses as affordable convenient screening tools for cancer detection. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we recruited 150 healthy current or former smokers through a community screening program. Baseline and four annual visits were conducted from March 2011-January 2016 with records followed until August 2020. Participants provided oral rinses, received head and neck exams, and completed questionnaires. SolCD44 and TP levels were measured and compared across groups and time. Participants were placed in the cancer group if malignancy developed in the study period, the suspicious group if physical exams were concerning for premalignant disease or cancer in the head and neck, and the healthy group if there were no suspicious findings. This analysis used two-sample t-test for comparison of means and two-sample Wilcoxon Test for comparison of medians. For subjects with follow-ups, estimated means of biomarkers were obtained from a fitted Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RANOVA) model including group, visit, and their interaction. Pairwise comparisons of mean solCD44 were made, including intergroup and intragroup comparison of values at different years. RESULTS: Most participants were males (58.7%), < 60 years of age. (90.7%), and Black (100%). Baseline mean solCD44 was elevated (2.781 ng/ml) in the cancer group compared to the suspicious group (1.849 ng/ml) and healthy group (1.779 ng/ml). CONCLUSION: This study supports the feasibility of a CD44-based oral rinse test as an affordable and convenient adjunctive tool for early detection of aerodigestive tract and other cancers in high-risk populations.

Quantitative analysis of the effects of essential oil mouthrinses on clinical plaque microbiome: a parallel-group, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The rich diversity of microorganisms in the oral cavity plays an important role in the maintenance of oral health and development of detrimental oral health conditions. Beyond commonly used qualitative microbiome metrics, such as relative proportions or diversity, both the species-level identification and quantification of bacteria are key to understanding clinical disease associations. This study reports the first-time application of an absolute quantitative microbiome analysis using spiked DNA standards and shotgun metagenome sequencing to assess the efficacy and safety of product intervention on dental plaque microbiome. METHODS: In this parallel-group, randomized clinical trial, essential oil mouthrinses, including LISTERINE® Cool Mint Antiseptic (LCM), an alcohol-containing prototype mouthrinse (ACPM), and an alcohol-free prototype mouthrinse (AFPM), were compared against a hydroalcohol control rinse on clinical parameters and the oral microbiome of subjects with moderate gingivitis. To enable a sensitive and clinically meaningful measure of bacterial abundances, species were categorized according to their associations with oral conditions based on published literature and quantified using known amounts of spiked DNA standards. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that both LCM and ACPM shifted the dysbiotic microbiome composition of subjects with gingivitis to a healthier state after 4 weeks of twice-daily use, resembling the composition of subjects with clinically healthy oral conditions recruited for observational reference comparison at baseline. The essential oil-containing mouthrinses evaluated in this study showed statistically significant reductions in clinical gingivitis and plaque measurements when compared to the hydroalcohol control rinse after 6 weeks of use. CONCLUSIONS: By establishing a novel quantitative method for microbiome analysis, this study sheds light on the mechanisms of LCM mouthrinse efficacy on oral microbial ecology, demonstrating that repeated usage non-selectively resets a gingivitis-like oral microbiome toward that of a healthy oral cavity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 10/06/2021. The registration number is NCT04921371.

Oral mouthwashes for asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adults with COVID-19 and salivary viral load: a randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized clinical trials suggest that the effect of using cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes on the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load in COVID-19 patients has been inconsistent. Additionally, no clinical study has investigated the effectiveness of on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash against COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label clinical trial to assess for any effects of using mouthwash on the salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load among asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adult COVID-19-positive patients. Patients were randomized to receive either 20 mL of 0.05% CPC, 10 mL of 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide, or 20 mL of placebo mouthwash (purified water) in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the cycle threshold (Ct) values employed for SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load estimation. We used linear mixed-effects models to assess for any effect of the mouthwashes on SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load. RESULTS: Of a total of 96 eligible participants enrolled from November 7, 2022, to January 19, 2023, 90 were accepted for the primary analysis. The use of 0.05% CPC mouthwash was not shown to be superior to placebo in change from baseline salivary Ct value at 30 min (difference vs. placebo, 0.640; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.425 to 2.706; P = 0.543); 2 h (difference vs. placebo, 1.158; 95% CI, -0.797 to 3.112; P = 0.246); 4 h (difference vs. placebo, 1.283; 95% CI, -0.719 to 3.285; P = 0.209); 10 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.304; 95% CI, -1.777 to 2.385; P = 0.775); or 24 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.782; 95% CI, -1.195 to 2.759; P = 0.438). The use of 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash was also not shown to be superior to placebo in change from baseline salivary Ct value at 30 min (difference vs. placebo, 0.905; 95% CI, -1.079 to 2.888; P = 0.371); 2 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.709; 95% CI, -1.275 to 2.693; P = 0.483); 4 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.220; 95% CI, -1.787 to 2.226; P = 0.830); 10 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.198; 95% CI, -1.901 to 2.296; P = 0.854); or 24 h (difference vs. placebo, 0.784; 95% CI, -1.236 to 2.804; P = 0.447). CONCLUSIONS: In asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic adults with COVID-19, compared to placebo, the use of 0.05% CPC and 0.01% on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash did not lead to a significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load. Future studies of the efficacy of CPC and on-demand aqueous chlorine dioxide mouthwash on the viral viability of SARS-CoV-2 should be conducted using different specimen types and in multiple populations and settings.

Quantitative analysis of the effects of brushing, flossing, and mouthrinsing on supragingival and subgingival plaque microbiota: 12-week clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Translational microbiome research using next-generation DNA sequencing is challenging due to the semi-qualitative nature of relative abundance data. A novel method for quantitative analysis was applied in this 12-week clinical trial to understand the mechanical vs. chemotherapeutic actions of brushing, flossing, and mouthrinsing against the supragingival dental plaque microbiome. Enumeration of viable bacteria using vPCR was also applied on supragingival plaque for validation and on subgingival plaque to evaluate interventional effects below the gingival margin. METHODS: Subjects with gingivitis were enrolled in a single center, examiner-blind, virtually supervised, parallel group controlled clinical trial. Subjects with gingivitis were randomized into brushing only (B); brushing and flossing (BF); brushing and rinsing with Listerine® Cool Mint® Antiseptic (BA); brushing and rinsing with Listerine® Cool Mint® Zero (BZ); or brushing, flossing, and rinsing with Listerine® Cool Mint® Zero (BFZ). All subjects brushed twice daily for 1 min with a sodium monofluorophosphate toothpaste and a soft-bristled toothbrush. Subjects who flossed used unflavored waxed dental floss once daily. Subjects assigned to mouthrinses rinsed twice daily. Plaque specimens were collected at the baseline visit and after 4 and 12 weeks of intervention. Bacterial cell number quantification was achieved by adding reference amounts of DNA controls to plaque samples prior to DNA extraction, followed by shallow shotgun metagenome sequencing. RESULTS: 286 subjects completed the trial. The metagenomic data for supragingival plaque showed significant reductions in Shannon-Weaver diversity, species richness, and total and categorical bacterial abundances (commensal, gingivitis, and malodor) after 4 and 12 weeks for the BA, BZ, and BFZ groups compared to the B group, while no significant differences were observed between the B and BF groups. Supragingival plaque vPCR further validated these results, and subgingival plaque vPCR demonstrated significant efficacy for the BFZ intervention only. CONCLUSIONS: This publication reports on a successful application of a quantitative method of microbiome analysis in a clinical trial demonstrating the sustained and superior efficacy of essential oil mouthrinses at controlling dental plaque compared to mechanical methods. The quantitative microbiological data in this trial also reinforce the safety and mechanism of action of EO mouthrinses against plaque microbial ecology and highlights the importance of elevating EO mouthrinsing as an integral part of an oral hygiene regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 31/10/2022. The registration number is NCT05600231.

Efficacy of a mouthwash containing ε-poly-L-lysine, funme peptides and domiphen in reducing halitosis and supragingival plaque: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antibacterial effectiveness of a combination of ε-poly-L-lysine (ε-PL), funme peptide (FP) as well as domiphen against oral pathogens, and assess the efficacy of a BOP® mouthwash supplemented with this combination in reducing halitosis and supragingival plaque in a clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of the compound against Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Streptococcus mutans, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were determined by the gradient dilution method. Subsequently, the CCK-8 assay was used to detect the toxicity of mouthwash on human gingival fibroblastst, and the effectiveness in reducing halitosis and supragingival plaque of the mouthwash supplemented with the combination was analyzed by a randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial. RESULTS: The combination exhibited significant inhibitory effects on tested oral pathogens with the MIC < 1.56% (v/v) and the MBC < 3.13% (v/v), and the mouthwash containing this combination did not inhibit the viability of human gingival fibroblasts at the test concentrations. The clinical trial showed that the test group displayed notably lower volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) at 0, 10, 24 h, and 7 d post-mouthwash (P < 0.05), compared with the baseline. After 7 days, the VSC levels of the and control groups were reduced by 50.27% and 32.12%, respectively, and notably cutting severe halitosis by 57.03% in the test group. Additionally, the Plaque Index (PLI) of the test and control group decreased by 54.55% and 8.38%, respectively, and there was a significant difference in PLI between the two groups after 7 days (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ε-PL, FP and domiphen demonstrated potent inhibitory and bactericidal effects against the tested oral pathogens, and the newly formulated mouthwash added with the combination exhibited anti-dental plaque and anti-halitosis properties in a clinical trial and was safe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The randomized controlled clinical trial was registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2300073816, Date: 21/07/2023).

Pilot, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating 4 oral hygiene regimens using a manual toothbrush, toothpaste, and mouthwash.

In this prospective pilot study, 84 patients with a history of poor oral hygiene were enrolled in an open-label, interventional, randomized controlled clinical trial. The aim was to provide preliminary clinical data on a new line of oral hygiene products containing a prebiotic and a paraprobiotic based on Lactobacillus plantarum. The recruitment rate and patient satisfaction were analyzed to estimate resources for the future primary study, and descriptive data on rebalancing of the oral microbiota were collected. The population was divided into 5 groups based on the products assigned to the patients: 1, delicate mint toothpaste (n = 20); 2, mint toothpaste (n = 12); 3, mint mouthwash (n = 20); 4, delicate mint toothpaste, mint mouthwash, and an antimicrobial toothbrush (n = 20); and 5, continued use of their usual oral care products and routine (control group; n = 12). The study duration was 28 days. All patients tolerated the products well, and there were no adverse events. The recruitment capability and procedures allowed for a realistic estimation for the future main trial. The products did not cause any changes in tooth color. The participants in group 4, who completed the treatment consisting of delicate mint toothpaste, mint mouthwash, and an antimicrobial toothbrush, reported the greatest reduction in gingival sensitivity (P ≤ 0.000; Wilcoxon signed rank test). Analysis with the Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that all products induced a statistically significant decrease in plaque (P ≤ 0.002) and a reduction in gingival sensitivity (delicate mint toothpaste, P ≤ 0.005; mint toothpaste, P ≤ 0.015; and mint mouthwash, P ≤ 0.015). All products were effective in stabilizing the oral microbiota. The tested products showed an optimal safety profile and a statistically significant efficacy in reducing gingival sensitivity and plaque. They also stabilized the biodiversity of the oral microbiota, making it less susceptible to microbial fluctuations than the control group. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05999175).

Association between mouth rinse use and changes in blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Previous randomized controlled trials have shown that the use of antiseptic mouth rinses not only eradicates oral bacteria but also disrupts their ability to convert nitrate to nitrite, which is the key molecule in regulating blood pressure (BP). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association between the use of mouth rinses and changes in BP. METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from their respective inception dates to 18th December 2022 to identify potential interventional studies with information on the association between the use of mouth rinse and changes in BP. Five trials using a controlled, crossover design were identified for data analysis. RESULTS: The weighted mean difference was pooled using a random-effects model. The pooled results of five trials together showed that the use of mouth rinses did not result in a statistically or clinically significant increase in the systolic BP (SBP) (1.59 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.15 to 3.33) or diastolic BP (DBP) (0.46 mmHg; 95% CI, -0.72 to 1.64). The trial sequential analysis did not present conclusive evidence supporting the association between mouth rinse use and BP elevation. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the available evidence, our review and meta-analysis showed that mouth rinse use did not result in a statistically significant increase in the SBP, DBP, or mean arterial pressure (MAP). Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to the high degree of inconsistency across the studies.