How to deal with morning bad breath: A randomized, crossover clinical trial

A comprehensive review of the application of probiotics and postbiotics in oral health

Oral diseases are among the most common diseases around the world that people usually suffer from during their lifetime. Tooth decay is a multifactorial disease, and the composition of oral microbiota is a critical factor in its development. Also, Streptococcus mutans is considered the most important caries-causing species. It is expected that probiotics, as they adjust the intestinal microbiota and reduce the number of pathogenic bacteria in the human intestine, can exert their health-giving effects, especially the anti-pathogenic effect, in the oral cavity, which is part of the human gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, numerous in vitro and in vivo studies have been conducted on the role of probiotics in the prevention of tooth decay. In this review, while investigating the effect of different strains of probiotics Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria on oral diseases, including dental caries, candida yeast infections, periodontal diseases, and halitosis, we have also discussed postbiotics as novel non-living biological compounds derived from probiotics.

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.

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: Evidence of Oral Health Implications

The prevalence of common oral diseases, such as dental caries, periodontal diseases and oral candidiasis remains high in the general population. Various preventive strategies have been proposed and included in national health programs promoting oral health. Interest in probiotics in light of oral health has gradually evolved as attractive means in prevention of oral infectious diseases. The aim of the present review is to outline the current evidence on the role of probiotic species on oral health parameters and their beneficial role in contributing to healthier oral environment.

Clinical evaluation of residual tetrasodium pyrophosphate released from two different anticalculus flosses

The aim of this study was to compare the residual content of tetrasodium pyrophosphate released by two different anticalculus dental flosses (Reach PP®--entangled polypropylene floss and Reach NT®--texturized nylon) in the oral cavity. Ten healthy individuals (aged between 18 and 30 years) were enrolled in this randomized crossover clinical investigation. Participants received instructions on daily dental flossing and the interventions were randomly performed in 2 different groups (NT or PP) of five individuals each according to the dental flosses. Individuals were instructed to use each dental floss with a total of six slides on the two interproximal aspects of target teeth (3 slides on each interproximal aspect). A washout period of one week was used before start flossing interventions and after each type of dental floss to prevent any bias related to the exposure to any product that contained the active ingredient. Samples were collected by #35 sterilized absorbent paper points from interdental fluid after flossing and assessed by ion chromatography. The levels of residual tetrasodium pyrophosphate were evaluated by means of binomial generalized linear model proportions and canonical link function. Both dental flosses were effective in tetrasodium pyrophosphate release at therapeutic levels in the interdental gingival crevicular fluid for a period of up to 2 h after use. No significant differences were found between both groups (p>0.05). It may be concluded that both material composition and physical structure of the new dental floss did not affect the release or the maintenance of anticalculus agent at therapeutic levels for a period of up to 2 h after single use.