Trial reportBMC oral health2024
Comparison of the effect of licorice and chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral health of intubated patients in the intensive care unit.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Blue®m and chlorhexidine mouthwash on oral health of intubated patients in intensive care unit.Brazilian dental journal · 2025Trial
- Oral care interventions in adult intensive care unit patients: A systematic review of oral and respiratory outcomes.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Cytotoxicity, antibacterial efficacy, and fluoride content of commercial herbal toothpastes.BDJ open · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChlorhexidine mouthwash is a common oral hygiene product used in intensive care units, but it may have some adverse effects. Licorice, a natural herb, could be a potential alternative to chlorhexidine. However, the effect of licorice mouthwash on the oral health of intubated patients has not been studied yet. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of licorice and chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral health of intubated patients.
methodsThis was a triple-blind clinical trial. The sample included 130 intubated patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Iran. The samples were selected by convenience sampling and randomly assigned to two groups: A and B. In group A, the main researcher applied 15 ml of 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash after each brushing (twice a day for 5.5 days) and suctioned it after 30 s. In group B, 20% licorice mouthwash was used instead of chlorhexidine. The demographic information questionnaire and the Beck Oral Assessment Scale (BOAS) were completed by one of the nurses before and on the sixth day of the study.
resultsFinally, 60 patients in each group completed the study. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic variables or oral health before the intervention (P > 0.05). The oral health of patients in both the chlorhexidine and liquorice mouthwash groups improved significantly after the intervention (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in oral health between the two groups at postintervention (P = 0.06).
conclusionThe results demonstrated that both mouthwashes exerted a comparable effect on dental and oral health. However, the chlorhexidine mouthwash showed a greater impact on the reduction of dental plaque and the thinning of saliva compared to licorice mouthwash. In essential cases, licorice mouthwash can be employed as an alternative to chlorhexidine.
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.