ReviewJournal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP
Efficacy of herbal alternatives in maintaining oral health in cancer patients: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical Safety Assessment of an Ayurvedic Dentifrice: Acute and 28-Day Oral Toxicity Studies in Wistar Albino Rats.Journal of toxicology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Herbal rinses possess different medicinal properties. Numerous studies have reported the usefulness of various herbal oral rinses. Few studies claimed that herbal rinses are superior to synthetic mouth rinses for certain purposes, but there appears to be a lack of sound scientific evidence to prove the efficacy of herbal rinses in controlling oral plaque in cancer patients. This review analyses the various clinical studies on herbal rinses and aims to find the safety and efficacy of red ginseng mouth rinses over other available mouth rinses in carcinoma patients. A thorough electronic search was conducted in various databases and 10 articles were included in the review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data extracted were tabulated and analyzed. The risk of bias table was drawn. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. Of the 10 clinical trials included in the review, three studies appeared to have low risk of bias. The mean follow-up period was 14 days, ranging from 7 to 21 days. The sample size in each study was reported to be between 10 and 50, except one study with 240 samples. Seven studies have reported a significant difference between the herbal mouth rinse group and the chlorhexidine group. Of all the herbal rinses, mouth rinses with ginger extracts show more efficacy over other herbal rinses and red ginseng appears to be a more safer herbal rinse. Based on the available evidence, herbal mouth rinses are comparable to synthetic mouth rinses in their anti-bacterial properties. The red ginseng with anti-bacterial, anti-inflammatory and anti-cancerous properties may be an alternative mouth rinse in cancer patients. However, further clinical trials with more samples are required for better evidence.
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.