Trial reportInternational journal of dental hygiene2025
User perception of fluoride mouthwashes for daily use: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in International journal of dental hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- User perception of fluoride mouthwashes for daily use: A randomized clinical trial.International journal of dental hygiene · 2025Trial
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess user perceptions of different commercially available fluoride mouthwashes (FL-MWs).
methodsA single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to a sequence of six different FL-MWs, one of which contained alcohol. For each visit, participants rinsed with one specific mouthwash (15 mL) for 30 s. After rinsing, participants completed a questionnaire with a visual analogue scale. Questions focused on overall taste, mild/pungent feeling, taste duration, foaming effect, burning sensation, sensitivity, numbness, dryness, rinsing time, smell, and colour of the mouthwashes. Descriptive analyses and statistical tests regarding differences among and between the mouthwashes were performed.
resultsOverall, 53 participants completed the study protocol, including nine who did, however, not rinse with the alcohol-containing mouthwash due to religious reasons. Among the mouthwashes, significant differences were found for foaming effect, sensitivity, rinsing time, smell, and colour (p < 0.05). Pairwise comparison for smell did not reveal a difference, and foaming was within the acceptance range (low to medium foaming). Coloured mouthwashes were more appreciated than transparent solutions (p = 0.00). The mouthwash containing essential oils and alcohol produced significantly more sensitivity (p = 0.00) and, in general, participants experienced the rinsing time significantly longer (p < 0.05) compared to the non-alcohol-containing mouthwashes.
conclusionThere is heterogeneity in user perceptions and preferences for FL-MWs, with a significant difference in foaming effect, sensitivity, rinsing time, smell, and colour. Coloured mouthwashes are preferred. The mouthwash containing essential oils and alcohol was less acceptable in relation to sensitivity and rinsing time.
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.