The impact of chewing gum on halitosis parameters: a systematic review

Self-perceived and self-reported breath odour and the wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

To assess the self‐perception of breath odour (SPBO) and oral hygiene habits (OHHs) while the wearing of face masks during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Subjects and Methods

This cross‐sectional study included 4647 individuals who answered a structured questionnaire containing demographic, medical and dental variables and self‐perceived breath odour. Variables associated with changes in self‐perceived breath odour, self‐perceived halitosis and changes in OHHs were assessed through multivariate logistic regression.

Results

Changes in self‐perceived breath odour were reported by 1572 individuals and were associated with smoking, systemic conditions, dry mouth, tongue coating, the period of face mask use and its interaction with prior thinking of having bad breath. Likewise, 645 individuals started to consider having bad breath. This was associated with the interaction between prior family/friends saying they have bad breath and period of face mask use. Changes in OHHs were strongly associated with changes in SPBO and starting to consider having bad breath.

Conclusion

Changes in one's SPBO was associated with the wearing of face masks and was significant for changes in OHHs. Findings may be important to guide comprehensive preventive and therapeutic strategies in relation to oral health care.

Halitosis in Children Undergoing Full Mouth Rehabilitation under General Anesthesia

Interventions and management modalities of pediatric halitosis have been suggested in the literature, however, the effect of full mouth rehabilitation (FMR) under general anesthesia (GA) on pediatric halitosis was not reported. Therefore, the present study was conducted to investigate parents' perceptions of their child's halitosis before and after FMR under GA; and to evaluate the effect of FMR on clinical halitosis. Fifty-seven children between 3-8 years old, scheduled for FMR under GA, were included after satisfying the inclusion criteria and upon parental consent. Parents' perception of halitosis in their children was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire and a breath sample was collected to assess the level of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) using OralChroma^TM before and after FMR under GA. Sixty percent (n = 34) of the parents perceived halitosis in their children before FMR and about 80% (n = 27) of them reported improvement in halitosis after FMR. Clinical halitosis was detected in 84.2% (n = 48) of the sample before treatment. A statistically significant reduction in halitosis was found in 56.3% (n = 27) of the children after treatment (p < 0.001). In conclusion, majority of parents perceived an absence or reduction of halitosis in their children following FMR and significant improvement of clinical halitosis.

Interventions for managing halitosis

BACKGROUND

Halitosis or bad breath is a symptom in which a noticeably unpleasant breath odour is present due to an underlying oral or systemic disease. 50% to 60% of the world population has experienced this problem which can lead to social stigma and loss of self-confidence. Multiple interventions have been tried to control halitosis ranging from mouthwashes and toothpastes to lasers. This new Cochrane Review incorporates Cochrane Reviews previously published on tongue scraping and mouthrinses for halitosis.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.

Probiotics in Disease Prevention and Treatment

Few treatments for human diseases have received as much investigation in the past 20 years as probiotics. In 2017, English-language meta-analyses totaling 52 studies determined the effect of probiotics on conditions ranging from necrotizing enterocolitis and colic in infants to constipation, irritable bowel syndrome, and hepatic encephalopathy in adults. The strongest evidence in favor of probiotics lies in the prevention or treatment of 5 disorders: necrotizing enterocolitis, acute infectious diarrhea, acute respiratory tract infections, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and infant colic. Probiotic mechanisms of action include the inhibition of bacterial adhesion; enhanced mucosal barrier function; modulation of the innate and adaptive immune systems (including induction of tolerogenic dendritic cells and regulatory T cells); secretion of bioactive metabolites; and regulation of the enteric and central nervous systems. Future research is needed to identify the optimal probiotic and dose for specific diseases, to address whether the addition of prebiotics (to form synbiotics) would enhance activity, and to determine if defined microbial communities would provide benefit exceeding that of single-species probiotics.

The Efficacy of a Chewing Gum Containing Phyllanthus emblica Fruit Extract in Improving Oral Health

Phyllanthus emblica: (PE) fruit extract has pharmacological activity and exert anti-bacterial, anti-oxidative, anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer effects, but few study exist for evaluating its improved effects on the imbalance of oral ecology, which may contribute to series of oral diseases. In this study, an examiner-blinded, randomized, and gum-base-controlled crossover manner was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of a sugar-free chewing gum containing PE fruit extract in changing the oral microbiome. Twenty healthy young adults were randomly instructed to chew either PE gum or placebo gum. Saliva samples were collected at baseline and from 0 to 2, 2 to 5, 5 to 10, 10 to 15, and 75 to 80 min after each intervention. The following outcomes were measured: (i) salivary flow rate and pH value; (ii) total bacteria, Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) counts; and (iii) volatile sulfur compound (VSC) concentrations. The results showed similar data between groups at baseline and significantly higher salivary flow rates and pH levels in the PE fruit gum group after 0-2, 2-5, and 5-10 min of chewing. Assessment of total bacteria, S. mutans, P. gingivalis, and VSC levels revealed significant differences between the PE and control gum groups at 75-80 min. No adverse effects were registered. The present finding indicated chewing gum containing PE fruit extract stimulated salivary flow and significantly reduced clinical test indexes in the short term. Chewing PE gum might be a safe means of improving oral hygiene.

Halitosis Assessment and Changes in Volatile Sulfur Compounds After Chewing Gum: A Study Performed on Dentistry Students

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of halitosis (with subjective and objective methods), evaluate the immediate effect of chewing gum on volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs), assess the perception of halitosis by dentistry students, and estimate the distribution of positive and negative frequencies, when comparing objective and subjective methods for the diagnosis of halitosis.

METHODS

The study was performed on a sample of dentistry students attending the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at the University of Barcelona. A questionnaire about halitosis perception was provided and a clinical examination, organoleptic test (OT), and gas chromatography were performed to determine the presence of halitosis. The subjects were also given chewing gum to modify their breath, and gas chromatography was carried out to evaluate possible changes in VSCs.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 80 individuals. Twenty-seven (33.75%) self-perceived halitosis during the period of evaluation; the OT was positive in 38 subjects (47.5%); and individuals positive for halitosis on gas chromatography were distributed as follows: H₂S in 25 (31.25%), CH₃SH in 28 (35%), and (CH₃)₂S in 70 individuals (87.5%). A statistical difference before and after chewing gum (P < .05) was found for each VSC; a difference in frequencies was observed between the variable OT and H₂S (P < .05) and between the OT and (CH₃)₂S (P < .001). There was no significant difference (P > .05) between the positive and negative frequencies retrieved between the variable OT and CH₃SH and between the OT and the student's halitosis perception.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of halitosis in the studied sample is high, considering that it comprised healthy individuals. The relationship between the OT and gas chromatography is not completely established. Chewing gum could be considered a therapeutic alternative to decrease or neutralize the amount of VSCs present in oral breath.