ReviewBritish dental journal2020
Charcoal-based mouthwashes: a literature review.
Review in British dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Next-Generation Carbon-Based Quantum Dots for Healthcare and Beauty Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Charcoal whitening agents and composite resin: investigating color change and surface roughness.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Activated Charcoal Toothpaste vs. 6% Hydrogen Peroxide Whitening Pen-An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Does the whitening dentifrice containing activated charcoal interfere with the properties of dental enamel? Microhardness, surface roughness and colorimetry analyzes.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Mouthwashes: Alternatives and Future Directions.International dental journal · 2023Review
- Article
- Effect of novel charcoal-containing whitening toothpaste and mouthwash on color change and surface morphology of enamel.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The commercial marketplace has seen a rapid increase in the number of over-the-counter charcoal-containing mouthwashes. The purpose of this systemic review was to examine the clinical and laboratory evidence supporting therapeutic claims of efficacy and safety of use of charcoal-based mouthwashes. Secondly, the product labels and information of 36 commercially marketed charcoal mouthwashes were reviewed for active ingredients. Only 8% of charcoal mouthwashes contained an active ingredient, such as cetylpyridinium chloride or chlorhexidine. There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the therapeutic and cosmetic marketing claims of charcoal-based mouthwashes, including antimicrobial activity, anti-halitosis, tooth whitening, periodontal disease control, caries reduction and tooth remineralisation, among others. Moreover, there is no available information on charcoal particulate size or abrasivity of any of these products. Dental clinicians should advise their patients to exercise caution when using over-the-counter charcoal-containing mouthwashes because of the lack of evidence supporting therapeutic or cosmetic effectiveness as well as safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32112023What 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.