Cetylpyridinium chloride 1.28mg/g / Menthol 330micrograms/g pastilles sugar free

This narrative literature review is the first in a 6-section supplement on the role of mouthwashes in oral care. This introduction briefly summarises current knowledge on antimicrobial mechanisms, relating to some of the most common over-the-counter mouthwash products available worldwide: chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide, cetylpyridinium chloride, povidone iodine, and essential oils. The aim of this first article is to describe how mouthwashes "kill" pathogenic microbes when used adjunctively and thus provide a basis for their widespread use to manage key oral diseases, namely caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease. This article therefore sets the scene for subsequent, more detailed exploration of mouthwashes regarding their clinical effectiveness, impact on the oral microbiome, and possible effects on systemic health as well as natural alternatives and future directions. Other than the clinical effectiveness (for certain agents) of mouthwashes, on many topics there remains insufficient evidence for systematic review or formulation of robust national guidelines. The supplement, therefore, compiled by an international task team, is aimed at general dental practitioners across the globe, as an easy-to-read guide for helping to advise patients on mouthwash use based on the current best available evidence.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

To evaluate the effectiveness of antiseptic mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load clinically and in vitro. A systematic electronic search (MEDLINE/Scopus/Cochrane) was conducted to identify prospective clinical and in vitro studies published between 2019 included and 16 June 2023 assessing the effectiveness of mouthwashes in reducing SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva or surrogates. Data were summarized in tables and a network meta-analysis was performed for clinical trials. Thirty-five studies (14 RCTs, 21 in vitro) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was judged to be high for 2 clinical and 7 in vitro studies. The most commonly test product was chlorhexidine alone or in combination with other active ingredients, followed by povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide and cetylpyridinium chloride. Overall, the descriptive analysis revealed the effectiveness of the mouthwashes in decreasing the salivary viral load both clinically and in vitro. Network meta-analysis demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Among these studies, only chlorhexidine 0.20% was associated to a significant Ct increase in the saliva 5 min after rinsing compared to non-active control (p = 0.027). Data from clinical and in vitro studies suggested the antiviral efficacy of commonly used mouthwashes. Large well-balanced trials are needed to identify the best rinsing protocols.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

BackgroundThe risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load reduction in the oral cavity.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant studies up to 20 July, 2022. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trial and quasi-experimental studies evaluating patients with Covid-19 infection (patients) who used mouthwashes (intervention) compared to the same patients before using the mouthwash (comparison) for reducing the SARS-COV-2 load or increasing the cycle threshold (Ct) value (outcome) were searched according to PICO components. Three independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model in the Revman 5.4.1software using the mean difference (MD) of cycle threshold (Ct) values.ResultsOf 1653 articles, 9 with a high methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis indicated that 1% Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was an effective mouthwash for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load [MD 3.61 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.19)]. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) [MD 0.61 (95% confidence interval -1.03, 2.25)] and Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) [MD -0.04 95% confidence interval (-1.20, 1.12)] were not effective against SARS-COV-2.ConclusionUsing mouthwashes containing PVP-I may be recommended for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load in the oral cavity of patients before and during dental procedures, while the evidence is not sufficient for such effects for CPC and CHX-containing mouthwashes.

Abstract licence: CC BY

ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).Material and methodsAn electronic search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, and was complemented by a manual search. Both clinical and in vitro studies that focused on the antiviral effect of mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed only on the clinical studies using the RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools.ResultsA total of 907 records were found; after initial selection by title and abstract, 33 full-text articles were selected to be evaluated for eligibility. Finally, a total of 27 studies were included for the qualitative synthesis, including 16 in vitro studies and 11 clinical trials. Antiviral effects were evaluated separately for the in vitro and clinical studies. In vitro studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and other compounds; in vivo studies included mouthwashes containing hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, essential oils, chlorine dioxide, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol. Povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils were effective in vitro, while hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, β-cyclodextrin-citrox, and sorbitol with xylitol were effective in vivo. Unclear or high risk of bias was found for almost all clinical studies, and only one study presented with a low risk of bias. No further quantitative analysis was performed.ConclusionAlthough povidone-iodine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and essential oils may be an alternative to reduce the viral load in vitro and in vivo, more studies are needed to determine the real antiviral effect of these different mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2.This work was not funded. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (identification number: CRD42021236134).

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Abstract Background: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to examine the Key Question: Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking cessation compared with non-menthol cigarette use?Methods: The original protocol was registered on March 22, 2016 (updated January 10, 2019; PROSPERO: CRD42019119301). Six databases were queried from inception to December 14, 2018.Results: Fifty-seven studies (27 rated “good”, 27 rated as “fair”, and three studies rated as “poor” individual study quality) that compared menthol and non-menthol smokers were qualitatively synthesized across the following cessation measures (total adjusted studies; strength of evidence grade): duration of abstinence (2; low); quit attempts (14; insufficient); rate of abstinence/quitting (28; moderate); change in smoking quantity/frequency (3; insufficient); and return to smoking/relapse (2; insufficient). Overall, the qualitative synthesis failed to show a consistent trend for the association of menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation across the outcomes. Further, meta-analytic results found no difference between menthol and non-menthol cigarette use and the two measures of quit attempts and duration of abstinence.Implications: The overall strength of evidence for an association between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation was graded as “low”, based on deficiencies of indirectness and inconsistency in the available body of evidence. Therefore, there is no consistent, significant, or differential association between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0