Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35513817›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2022

Effectiveness of oral care interventions on malodour in dogs.

Julie M Croft, Krusha V Patel, Taichi Inui, Avika Ruparell, Ruth Staunton, Lucy J Holcombe

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Novel Postbiotic Reduces Canine Halitosis.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie M CroftWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 4RT, UK. Julie.Croft@effem.com.
Krusha V PatelWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 4RT, UK.
Taichi InuiWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 4RT, UK.
Avika RuparellWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 4RT, UK.
Ruth StauntonWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 4RT, UK.
Lucy J HolcombeWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, LE14 4RT, UK.
UK Health and Environment Research Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral malodour is identified by pet owners as an unpleasant inconvenience, but they may not recognise this likely indicates underlying disease. The primary cause of oral malodour relates to the presence of bacteria in the oral cavity often associated with gingivitis and periodontitis. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of feeding two oral care chews with different textural properties on oral malodour and the proportion of bacterial species involved in the production of volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs).

methodsFourteen dogs (9 Petit Basset Griffon Vendéen (PBGV) and 5 Beagle dogs) participated in the randomised cross-over study for a total of 14 weeks. The cohort was divided into four groups with each exposed to a different intervention per week: chew A, chew B, tooth brushing control or a no intervention control. An induced malodour method was used to assess VSCs in breath samples using a portable gas chromatograph (OralChroma™). Microbiological samples (supragingival plaque and tongue coating scrapes) were analysed for VSC-producing bacteria using Oral Hydrogen Sulfide agar with lead acetate.

resultsVSCs were detected in the dogs' breath samples and levels of hydrogen sulphide and methyl mercaptan were found to be reduced following an intervention. Chew B significantly reduced the levels of both hydrogen sulphide (p < 0.001) and methyl mercaptan (p < 0.05) compared to no intervention. Reductions in methyl mercaptan were also observed for chew A and tooth brushing but these were not statistically significant. When compared to no intervention, all interventions significantly reduced the total bacterial load and VSC producing bacterial load in plaque (p < 0.001). For tongue samples, only chew B significantly reduced the total bacterial load and VSC-producing bacterial load (p < 0.001) compared to no intervention.

conclusionsBy inducing oral malodour and subsequently applying the one-time interventions, significant reductions in the levels of VSCs were observed. The use of oral care chews texturally designed to deliver a deep, all-round cleaning action can be particularly effective at managing oral malodour in dogs, likely through an enhanced ability to remove bacteria.

Indexed as

HalitosisHydrogen SulfideAnimalsCross-Over StudiesDogsSulfhydryl CompoundsSulfur CompoundsHydrogen SulfideSulfhydryl CompoundsSulfur CompoundsDogsOral care interventionsOral malodourVolatile sulphur compoundsVSC-producing bacteria

Identifiers

PMID35513817
PMCPMC9074277
OpenAlexW4228996964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.