The efficacy of two oral hygiene regimens in reducing oral malodour: a randomised clinical trial

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.

The Effect of Lemon Essential Oil on Halitosis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of lemon essential oil (LEO) on salivary bacteria and volatile sulfur compound (VSC) production of patients with halitosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Saliva of five patients with halitosis was collected, after adding different concentrations (0.563-9 mg/ml) of LEO, detecting the growth of salivary bacteria, the formation of biofilm, and VSC production, and compare the difference of different concentrations of LEO on bacterial growth and VSC production. 48 volunteers were randomly divided into 4 groups. After gargling with LEO, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), chlorhexidine (CHX), and hydrogen peroxide (H₂ O₂ ) separately measure changes of VSC production and pH values at 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min and then compare the differences at different time points within group.

RESULTS

Compared with the negative control group, under subinhibitory concentrations of LEO (0.563-2.25 mg/ml), the biofilm formation and VSC production of salivary bacteria in LEO group were significantly inhibited (p < 0.05). Compared with the baseline, the VSC production of subjects decreased after rinsing with the LEO in 60 min (p < 0.05). After gargling with LEO, the pH value rose significantly in 30 min and reverted to the baseline level at 120 min (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lemon essential oil can inhibit the growth of salivary bacteria and reduce VSC production of patients with halitosis.

Pilot study on selective antimicrobial effect of a halitosis mouthrinse: monospecies and saliva-derived microbiome in an in vitro model system

Background

Halitosis refers to malodor emanating from the oral cavity. Several mouthrinses with halitosis-reduction exist on the market, but their effect on the oral microbiome is largely unknown. In this study, we used an efficient in vitro model system to investigate a test mouthrinse's impact on the oral microbiome.

Methods

Single halitosis-associated species and other common oral microorganism cultures were exposed to the test mouthrinse over time, and their viability was determined by culture-based selective plating. Next, the saliva-derived microbiome from healthy and halitosis-associated individuals was cultured in the presence of the test mouthrinse over time using the previously developed in vitro model system. The microbiome composition was assessed with 16S rRNA gene sequencing and downstream bioinformatics analyses.

Results

The test mouthrinse displayed antimicrobial activity against known anaerobic bacterial species producing halitosis-related compounds such as Fusobacterium nucleatum, F. periodonticum, and Prevotella intermedia but not against other common oral microorganisms. In the multispecies, saliva-derived cultures, mouthrinse exposure decreased the relative abundance of the Fusobacterium and Prevotella genera while not affecting overall diversity.

Conclusions

The test mouthrinse had promising anti-halitosis characteristics at the microbiome level, as demonstrated by the reduction in the relative abundance of halitosis-associated taxa while maintaining microbial diversity.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Lacer HaliTM Treatment on the Management of Halitosis: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Background: Halitosis of oral origin is very common in the general population. Due to their antimicrobial properties, chlorhexidine-based products are widely used in the management of this condition, but these are associated with reversible side effects. In this study we evaluated the efficacy of Lacer Hali^TM mouthrinse and toothpaste in subjects with intraoral halitosis after several applications under normal conditions of use. Methods: In this randomized clinical trial with mouth rinse and toothpaste, single-center, double-blinded, parallel participants were assigned to an experimental group (Lacer Hali^TM,, n = 20), a positive control group (Halita^TM, n = 20), and a placebo group (n = 20). The active duration of the study was 18 days. The clinical follow-up evaluations were performed at five time points (T0, T1, T2, T3, and T4). The intensity of halitosis was evaluated by organoleptic measurement and the portable gas chromatograph OralChroma^TM. The data were analyzed using generalized mixed linear models. Results: Sixty patients completed the study. Lacer Hali^TM, in comparison with Halita^TM, did not show statistically significant differences at any time during the study except for the levels of hydrogen sulfide and total volatile sulfur compounds at 15 days, where Halita^TM was better. Compared to the placebo treatment, Lacer Hali^TM, was significantly more efficient, in terms of both the organoleptic evaluations at 8 days and the levels of hydrogen sulfide. Conclusions: Lacer Hali^TM is an alternative to chlorhexidine-based toothpaste and mouthwashes in the management of halitosis.

Evaluation of the efficacy of a commercially available regimen vs brushing alone on established plaque and gingivitis on adolescents: Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Dental biofilm accumulation and poor personal oral hygiene are known major risk factors for gingivitis and halitosis. However, it is not clear how studies compare the effectiveness of hygiene regimens, associated with outcomes centered on patients.

METHODS

A randomized, blind, controlled clinical trial involving 58 participants aged from 12 to 17 years, who search the Department of Pediatric Dentistry of Universidade Metropolitana de Santos, will be conducted. Immediately, the volunteers will be inserted into Group 1 (commercially available hygiene regimen) or Group 2 (tooth brushing alone). In Group 1, participants will receive Colgate Total 12 toothpastes, Plax mouthwashes and Colgate Ultrasoft toothbrushes, while Group 2 will use Colgate Cavity Protection toothpastes and Colgate Ultrasoft toothbrushes. The interventions will be conducted in the periods of 1, 3, and 6 months after the baseline, when the evaluations will also be performed. Biofilm and halitosis indexes will be evaluated. Data regarding discomfort, satisfaction and the socioeconomic/individual characteristics will also be computed.

DISCUSSION

Although toothbrushing has shown positive effects in decreasing biofilm and in gingival health, there is no comparison in the literature of different brushing regimens with halitosis measurement in adolescents. In addition, the effectiveness of these protocols would be confirmed from the acceptability of the volunteers.

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.

Induction and inhibition of oral malodor

Volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) such as hydrogen sulfide (H₂ S) and methyl mercaptan (CH₃ SH) are the main components of oral malodor, and are produced as the end products of the proteolytic processes of oral microorganisms. The main pathway of proteolysis is the metabolism of sulfur-containing amino acids by gram-negative anaerobic bacteria. Gram-positive bacteria may promote VSC production by gram-negative anaerobes by cleaving sugar chains from glycoproteins and thus providing proteins. A large variety of bacteria within the oral microbiota are thought to be involved in the complex phenomenon of halitosis. Oral microbiota associated with a lack of oral malodor, oral microbiota associated with severe and H₂ S-dominant oral malodor, and oral microbiota associated with severe and CH₃ SH-dominant oral malodor have been distinguished through molecular approaches using the 16S rRNA gene. Pathological halitosis may primarily be addressed through treatment of causative diseases. In all cases, plaque control is the basis of oral malodor control, and dentifrices, mouthwashes, and functional foods play a supplementary role in addition to brushing. Recently, the use of natural ingredients in products tends to be favored due to the increase in antibiotic-resistant strains and the side effects of some chemical ingredients. In addition, probiotics and vaccines are expected to offer new strategies for improving the oral conditions through mechanisms other than antibacterial agents.

A new technique for tongue brushing and halitosis reduction: the X technique

The tongue is one of the primary sources of halitosis. The manual or mechanical removal of biofilm is known to decrease oral malodor.

Novel reuterin-related compounds suppress odour by periodontopathic bacteria

OBJECTIVE

Halitosis is caused by volatile sulphur compounds including methyl mercaptan (CH₃ SH) in the oral cavity and is a serious problem that limits interpersonal social communication. The aim of study was to evaluate the effects of reuterin-related compounds (RRCs) on halitosis-related periodontopathic bacteria in vitro.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RRC-01, RRC-02 and RRC-03 (32 and 64 μg ml^-1 ) in culture media containing Fusobacterium nucleatum JCM8523 and Porphyromonas gingivalis ATCC33277 were used. The effects of RRCs on CH₃ SH production and detectable odour by F. nucleatum and P. gingivalis were examined by CH₃ SH production assay and organoleptic test, respectively. The number of bacterial cells was also measured using an ATP assay. In P. gingivalis treated with RRCs, the expression of mgl gene, which is responsible for CH₃ SH production, was examined by qRT-PCR.

RESULTS

CH₃ SH production and the score of detectable odour from F. nucleatum and P. gingivalis culture media containing RRCs were significantly lower than that without RRCs (P < 0.05). The expression of mgl gene in P. gingivalis was significantly downregulated by RRC-01 (P < 0.01), but not by RRC-02 or RRC-03.

CONCLUSIONS

RRCs are potent oral care products for preventing halitosis via reducing CH₃ SH production.