Trial reportInternational dental journal2015
The efficacy of two oral hygiene regimens in reducing oral malodour: a randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in International dental journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions for managing halitosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- A new technique for tongue brushing and halitosis reduction: the X technique.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2019Trial
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Lacer HaliJournal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Pilot study on selective antimicrobial effect of a halitosis mouthrinse: monospecies and saliva-derived microbiome in an in vitro model system.Journal of oral microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared the efficacy of two oral hygiene regimens in reducing oral malodour and the proportions of bacterial species involved in the production of volatile sulphur compounds. MATERIAL AND
methodsSeventy subjects who participated in a halitosis-induction phase and achieved an organoleptic score of ≥ 3.0 [time point 0 (T0)] randomised into two groups: brushing with regular fluoride toothpaste alone (control group) or brushing with regular fluoride toothpaste followed by rinsing with a 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwash (CPC group). Subjects followed their assigned oral hygiene regimen for 21 days. Then, they underwent an organoleptic examination and measurement of volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) using a portable gas chromatograph, 12 hours after their last oral hygiene procedure (T1) and 4 hours after an on-site oral hygiene (T2). Microbiological samples (supragingival biofilm, tongue coating and saliva) were analysed using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridisation.
resultsBoth therapies statistically significantly improved the organoleptic scores (P < 0.05), but the VSC levels and/or concentrations were reduced only in the CPC group (P < 0.05). In subjects rinsing with CPC, oral malodour scores were reduced by 49% at the 4-hour assessment (T2) compared with those not rinsing (P < 0.05). Red-complex pathogens were reduced more effectively in the CPC group than in the control group.
conclusionsBrushing followed by rinsing with a 0.075% CPC mouthwash provided statistically significantly greater reductions in oral malodour, measured organoleptically and instrumentally, and in the proportions of red-complex species when compared with brushing alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.