Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35627901›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Is Chlorhexidine in Dentistry an Ally or a Foe? A Narrative Review.

Łukasz Pałka, Agnieszka Nowakowska-Toporowska, Bartosz Dalewski

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Journal of oral microbiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Local Oxygen-Based Therapy (blueMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Łukasz PałkaPrivate Dental Practice, 68-200 Zary, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-9365-7882
Agnieszka Nowakowska-ToporowskaDepartment of Dental Prosthetics, Wroclaw Medical University, 50-367 Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0320-301X
Bartosz DalewskiDepartment of Dental Prosthetics, Pomeranian Medical University, 70-204 Szczecin, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0652-664X
Pomeranian Medical University · PLWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chlorhexidine has been one of the most effective and popular antiseptic substances used in medicine for decades. In dentistry, it has been used in endodontics, periodontology, surgery, and general dentistry. It is also widely used daily by patients in mouth rinses, gels, or toothpastes. Because of its multiple uses, we should follow all types of research reporting its potential adverse effects. This article aims to review the most up-to-date studies regarding chlorhexidine and its possible side effects, in the period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as the use of different antiseptic substances has rapidly increased.

Indexed as

adverse effectschlorhexidinedisinfectionoral hygieneoral microbiome

Identifiers

PMID35627901
PMCPMC9141996
OpenAlexW4224295783

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.