ArticleInternational dental journal2024
Fluoride, pH Value, and Titratable Acidity of Commercially Available Mouthwashes.
Article in International dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erosion Potential of Commercial Fluoride-Free Mouthwashes on Dental Hard Tissues.International journal of dental hygiene · 2026Article
- Influence of commercial mouth rinses with different formulations on enamel properties during at-home bleaching.Odontology · 2026Article
- Food-grade Lacticaseibacillus paracasei postbiotics suppress oral Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation and cariogenicity.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Drugstore or discount? A study on fluoride, pH and acidity of commercial mouthwashes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Antibacterial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties ofScientifica · 2026Article
- Intraoral applicability of plasma-activated water: antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity, and effects on tooth structure.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- In Situ Gel ContainingMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Effect of different mouthwash solutions on the surface morphology, nanohardness and flexural modulus of nickel-titanium orthodontic wire.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Effect of hydrogen peroxide versus charcoal-based whitening mouthwashes on color, surface roughness, and color stability of enamel.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Physiochemical Analysis of Fluoride Availability and pH in Moroccan Mouthwashes: Clinical Implications for Enamel Safety.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe primary objective of this work was to assess total soluble fluoride (TSF), pH values, and titratable acidity (TA) of various mouthwashes "in vitro," and the second was to compare fluoride content on labels with measured TSF.
methodsCommercial mouthwashes were collected and analysed. Company, type, manufacturer data, and active ingredients (essential oils [EO], cetylpyridinium chloride [CPC], chlorhexidine [CHX], and fluoride) were described. TSF, pH, and TA capacity were measured. Descriptive quantitative analysis were performed per mouthwash.
resultsIn total, 54 mouthwashes from 20 brands were included. These included mouthwashes with the active ingredients EO (n = 11), CPC (n = 17), CHX (n = 18), and fluoride (n = 32); 27 mouthwashes with more than 1 of these active ingredients; and 4 with none of the above-mentioned ingredients. Fluoride was present in different formulations; most contained sodium fluoride (NaF), and a few had sodium monofluorophosphate and amine fluoride + NaF. The pH values of all evaluated mouthwashes ranged from 4.1 to 7.9. Twenty mouthwashes presented pHs below 5.5, of which 10 contained fluoride. TA ranged from 0 to 48. According to the manufacturer data, mouthwashes with fluoride had concentrations from 217 to 450 ppm, with 90% in the range from 217 to 254 ppm. Laboratory data revealed that TSF ranged from 229 to 500 ppm, with 90% in the range from 229 to 337 ppm. A statistically significant difference was observed between measured TSF and the labelled fluoride content on the packaging of the fluoride mouthwashes (mean difference, 43.92 ± 34.34; P < .001). Most of these mouthwashes contained at least the amount of fluoride as mentioned on the packaging (93%).
conclusionThe pH values and TA of commercially available mouthwashes showed a large variation. TSF levels of the fluoride mouthwashes were found to be at least the amount of fluoride as labelled. Dental care professionals should be aware of the pH, TA, fluoride content, and other active ingredients of different mouthwashes to better understand their potential impact on oral health.
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.