Efficacy of chlorine dioxide mouthwash in reducing oral malodor: A 2-week randomized, double-blind, crossover study

Hyperpure chlorine dioxide versus chlorhexidine in intra-oral halitosis (ODOR trial) - protocol of a double-blinded, double-arm, parallel non-inferiority pilot randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Intra-oral halitosis (IOH) is the most common type of bad breath; its consequences impair quality of life. However, evidence-based treatment protocols and guidelines are lacking. Our aim is to investigate the effectiveness of chlorine dioxide as an applicable complementary treatment modality in IOH after tongue cleaning.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ODOR trial will be a single-center, double-blinded, parallel-group, double-armed pilot randomized controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. The efficacy of hyperpure chlorine dioxide will be compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash. We plan to investigate the short-term effects of the intervention over a 3-h period. The primary endpoint will be changes in organoleptic test scores. At the end of the pilot investigation of the first 30 patients each, sample size calculation will be performed. If feasible, the investigators will continue the study by enrolling more patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06219226).

Subgingival 0.75% boric acid vs 1% povidone-iodine adjunctive to subgingival instrumentation in stage II and III periodontitis-A double-blind randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of subgingival irrigation with 0.75% boric acid (BA) and 1% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) on clinical and microbiologic parameters in the management of patients with periodontitis after a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

Sixty systemically healthy individuals diagnosed with periodontitis were included in this double-blind randomised clinical trial. The patients were randomly allocated to treatment groups: (1) SRP plus 0.75% BA and (2) SRP plus 1% PVP-I. Whole-mouth periodontals were clinically examined, and the counts of bacteria including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Treponema denticola (Td), Tannerella forsythia (Tf), Solobacterium moorei (Sm) and Streptococcus salivarius (Ss) were tested by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

RESULTS

All periodontal parameters and the counts of Aa, Fn, Pg, Td, Tf, Sm and Ss in both groups showed statistically significant reductions at T3, T6 and T12 compared to T0. Whole-mouth or moderate or severe PD and CAL improvements were significantly found in the 0.75% BA group compared to the 1% PVP-I group at T3, T6 and T12. The reduction in Aa or Fn and the reduction in Ss were significantly higher in the 0.75% BA group at T6 and T12 than in the 1% PVP-I group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that subgingival irrigation with 0.75% BA may be an alternative to 1% PVP-I because it promotes greater PD reductions and CAL gain, particularly up to 12 months after treatment.

ORGANOLEPTIC AND HALITOMETRIC ASSESSMENTS DO NOT CORRELATE WELL IN INTRA-ORAL HALITOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

The gold standard method for diagnosing oral halitosis is the subjective organoleptic measurement. Device-supported methods are also widespread worldwide. The challenges and safety concerns around performing organoleptic measurements during pandemics and the diversity of measuring device alternatives raised our clinical question: which halitometer is the most suitable for diagnosing halitosis?

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42022320024). The search was performed on March 23, 2022 in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Adult populations with or without halitosis were included, and patients with systemic diseases were excluded. Organoleptic (subjective) measurement and the device-supported (objective) methods were compared; the primary outcome was the correlation coefficient, and the secondary was the specificity and sensitivity of the devices. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to evaluate the risk of bias in the studies. Random-effects meta analyses were performed on the outcomes, and the secondary outcomes were plotted on a common ROC plot.

RESULTS

A total of 1231 records were found in the 5 databases. After the selection process, 76 articles were eligible for the systematic review, and 14,635 patients were involved in the qualitative analysis. The pooled Spearman's correlation coefficient (c.c.) for sulfide monitors was 0.65; 95% CIs: [0.53-0.74]; I2 = 95%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for portable gas chromatographs was 0.69; 95% CIs: [0.63-0.74]; I2 = 12%, P < .01. The pooled Spearman's c.c. for gas chromatographs was 0.76; 95% CIs: [0.67-0.83]; I2 = 0%, P < .01.

DISCUSSION

None of the most commonly used halitometers proved to be significantly superior to the others. Halimeter and OralChroma measurements did not correlate well with the organoleptic level of oral halitosis in adults. Therefore, better halitometers need to be developed as an alternative to organoleptic measurements.

Daily use of chlorine dioxide effectively treats halitosis: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to conduct a systematic review on published data in order to investigate the efficacy of mouthwash products containing chlorine dioxide in halitosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Our search was conducted on 14th October 2021. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. We analysed data on adults with halitosis, included only randomised controlled trials and excluded in vitro and animal studies. The interventional groups used chlorine dioxide, and the comparator groups used a placebo or other mouthwash. Our primary outcomes were changes in organoleptic test scores (OLS) and Volatile Sulfur Compound (VSC) levels from baseline to the last available follow-up.

RESULTS

We found 325 articles in databases. After the selection process, ten articles were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and 7 RCTs with 234 patients were involved in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed a significant improvement in the parameters of the chlorine dioxide group compared to the placebo group in OLS one-day data (mean difference (MD): -0.82; 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs): [-1.04 --0.6]; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%, p = 0.67); and one-week OLS data (MD: -0.24; 95% CIs: [-0.41 --0.07]; I2 = 0%, p = 0.52); and also changes in H2S one-day data (standardised mean difference (SMD): -1.81; 95% CIs: [-2.52 --1.10]); I2 = 73.4%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our data indicate that chlorine dioxide mouthwash may be a good supportive therapy in oral halitosis without known side effects.

Could polyhexanide and chlorine dioxide be used as an alternative to chlorhexidine? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Maintenance of oral microbiota balance is the simplest way to prevent infectious oral diseases, through controlling dental biofilm. Combined use of mouthwash and mechanical removal has been shown to be a very effective way for this.

OBJECTIVES

To identify clinical studies comparing the antimicrobial effect and possible adverse effects and/or side effects of chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes with those of mouthwashes containing chlorine dioxide and/or polyhexanide, for controlling oral microbiota.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review designed by the stomatology sector of postgraduation in applied dental sciences of Bauru Dentistry School, University of São Paulo, Brazil.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Science Direct) up to April 8, 2020. The search was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

The studies included comprised eight articles published between 2001 and 2017. A total of 295 young adults, adults and elderly people were evaluated (males 44.75% and females 55.25%). Three articles compared polyhexanide with chlorhexidine and five articles compared chlorine dioxide with chlorhexidine. No studies comparing all three mouthwashes were found. The concentrations of the study solutions were quite varied, and all rinses had an antimicrobial effect. In four studies, it was stated that no side effects or adverse effects had been found. Three studies did not address these results and only one study addressed side effects and/or adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Mouthwashes containing chlorine dioxide and polyhexanide are viable alternatives to chlorhexidine, since they reduce oral biofilm and have little or no reported side or adverse effects.

Effects of Chlorine Dioxide on Oral Hygiene - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Effective and selective oral rinses are required in the daily medical and dental practice. Currently mouthwashes used have substantial side effects.

Objectives

Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of chlorine dioxide-containing mouthwashes in comparison with other previously established mouth rinses in healthy adults using oral hygiene indices.

Methods

This work was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018099059) and carried out using multiple databases and reported according to the PRISMA statement. The search terms used were “chlorine dioxide” AND “oral”, and only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The primary outcome was the alteration of the plaque index (PI), while the secondary outcomes were the gingival index (GI) and bacterial counts. For the risk of bias assessment, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used. Statistical analysis for data heterogeneity was performed by Q-value and I²-tests.

Results

364 articles were found in the databases. After the selection process, only five RCTs were eligible for meta-analysis. Data heterogeneity was low. There were no statistical differences in effectiveness between chlorine dioxide and other effective mouth rinses in PI (0.720±0.119 vs 0.745±0.131; 95%; confidence intervals (CIs): 0.487-0.952 vs 0.489-1.001, respectively) and GI (0.712±0.130 vs 0.745±0.131; 95% CIs: 0.457–0.967 vs 0.489–1.001, respectively) and also in bacterial counts.

Conclusion

Chlorine dioxide reduces both plaque and gingival indices and bacterial counts in the oral cavity similar to other routinely used oral rinses, however, the evidence supporting this outcome is very limited. Therefore, further large scale RCTs are needed to decrease the risk of bias.