Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39133629›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of dental hygiene2025

Essential oils mouthwash with or without alcohol in relation to effect on parameters of plaque and gingivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

B W M van Swaaij, G A Van der Weijden, R J Smith, M F Timmerman, D E Slot

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mouthwashes: should they be used by children?European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

B W M van SwaaijDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7364-8612
G A Van der WeijdenDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-8384
R J SmithDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M F TimmermanDepartment of Implantology and Periodontology, Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1432-6987
D E SlotDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7234-0037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe primary aim was to systematically assess the available literature on the effect of an essential oils mouthwash without alcohol (EOalc-) compared to an essential oils mouthwash with alcohol (EOalc+) on plaque scores and parameters of gingival health. The secondary aim was to evaluate user appreciation. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to and including March 2024. Papers comparing the effectiveness of EOalc- and EOalc+ were included. The quality was assessed. A descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed.

resultsAfter screening, seven papers were found to be eligible. The descriptive analysis demonstrates a significant difference in plaque scores in favour of EOalc+. This is confirmed by the meta-analyses of plaque scores in non-brushing and brushing studies (DiffM = 0.40; 95% CI [0.27; 0.53], p < 0.00001 and DiffM = 0.05; 95% CI [0.01; 0.10], p = 0.01, respectively). This finding is also supported by the sub-analysis of brands. The meta-analyses of bleeding and gingival scores in brushing studies did not show significant differences between products. For user appreciation, the difference found was for taste perception in favour of EOalc- (DiffM = 1.63; 95% CI [0.72; 2.55], p = 0.0004).

conclusionWhen an EO-mouthwash is used in non-brushing or brushing situations, with small to moderate certainty, EOalc- provided less effect regarding plaque control than EOalc+. For bleeding and gingival index there is weak certainty for no difference. In terms of the taste perception EOalc- seems more appreciated.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueEthanolGingivitisMouthwashesOils, VolatileDental Plaque IndexHumansEthanolMouthwashesOils, Volatilealcoholessential oilsgingivitismouth rinsemouthwashplaque

Identifiers

PMID39133629
PMCPMC11717972

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.