Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050872›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022

Comparative Evaluation of 3 Commercial Mouthwash Formulations on Clinical Parameters of Chronic Gingivitis.

Shahabe Saquib Abullais, Sabiha Ilyas Patel, Elyas Ali Asiri, Adel Ali Ahmed Jathmi, Afnan Hassan Alkhayri, Yosra Mohammed Mousa, Atheer Abdulhade Ganem, Khurshid A Mattoo

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Shahabe Saquib AbullaisDepartment of Periodontics and Community Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Sabiha Ilyas PatelDepartment of Periodontics, Private Dental Clinic, Muscat, Oman.
Elyas Ali AsiriDepartment of Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Primary Health Care Center, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Adel Ali Ahmed JathmiDepartment of Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Primary Health Care Center, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Afnan Hassan AlkhayriDepartment of Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Primary Health Care Center, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Yosra Mohammed MousaDepartment of Dentistry, Ministry of Health, Primary Health Care Center, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Atheer Abdulhade GanemDepartment of Pedodontics and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Khurshid A MattooDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
King Khalid University · SAMinistry of Health · SASaudi Center for Disease Prevention and Control · SAJazan University · SAMuscat College · OM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Chlorhexidine (CHX) is not prescribed as a mouthwash for long-term use; therefore, probiotic/herbal mouthwashes are being investigated. This study compared the effect of 3 commercial mouthwashes on plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding index (BI) in patients with chronic gingivitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty-five patients (all with moderate plaque) were randomly allocated into 3 groups (Gp): Gp 1 (CHX), Gp 2 (Manuka), and Gp 3 (Pro-Dental). Three periodontal clinical parameters - PI, GI, and BI - were recorded at baseline and on days 7, 14, and 28. An oral hygiene maintenance program was followed by a double-blinded intervention (coded bottle containing mouthwash). Both inter-group and intra-group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with multiple t tests. All probable values were considered to have various levels of significance at P<0.05 or below. RESULTS All indices for all groups showed higher values (mean) at baseline, which were lower on days 7, 14, and 28. No differences in any clinical parameter at any point of time existed between Gp 1 and Gp 2. There were, however, significant differences (P<0.05) between Gp 1/Gp 3 and Gp 2/Gp 3 for all clinical parameters at all observed time periods (days 7, 14, 28). Intra-group comparison for all groups demonstrated highly significant differences between baseline values and other time points. CONCLUSIONS For managing chronic gingivitis, Manuka mouthwash is as effective as a CHX mouthwash, as there were no differences observed in any clinical parameters at any point points.

Indexed as

GingivitisMouthwashesChlorhexidineChronic DiseaseDental Plaque IndexHumansPeriodontal IndexPlant ExtractsChlorhexidineMouthwashesPlant Extracts

Identifiers

PMID36050872
PMCPMC9447349
OpenAlexW4293168335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.