ArticleBMC oral health2025
Preliminary cytotoxicity assessment of Jaftex vs. chlorhexidine mouthwashes on human gingival fibroblasts and oral squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Chlorhexidine Derivatives and Alternative Agents on Streptococcus mutans Viability, Biofilm Formation, and Gene Expression.MicrobiologyOpen · 2026Article
- Comparison of the cytotoxic and apoptotic effects of mouthwashes containing different active ingredients on human gingival fibroblasts and their antimicrobial efficacy.BMC oral health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesJaftex is a new herbal mouthwash that consists of the aqueous extract of Jaft oak, thymus, and the aqueous extract of Satureja Bachtiarica. Its cytotoxicity remains unknown.
methodsThe sample size was determined as 180 specimens as 3 specimens for each of the 60 different combinations of 2 mouthwashes, 2 cell lines, 3 exposure times (24, 48, 72 h), and 5 mouthwash doses. Also, there were 36 positive and negative controls. Jaftex 1% and chlorhexidine 0.2% were sterilized and diluted 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, 1:16, and 1:32 of the original concentration. Each drug dilution was made available in triplicate. OCC and HuGu cells were exposed to these concentrations at 37 °C for 24 h (n = 60), 48 h (n = 60), and 72 h (n = 60). The optical densities (ODs) were measured for each of the 180 experimental specimens and 36 positive and negative specimens. Also the IC50 was calculated. The results were analyzed (α = 0.05).
resultsThe viability was much higher in the case of Jaftex compared with CHX. The viability was higher in OCC compared to HuGu. All pairwise comparisons between each two dosages were significant (all P values ≤ 0.013) in a way that by reducing the dosage, the viability increased.
conclusionsThe toxicity of Jaftex was significantly lower than that of chlorhexidine. Also, the toxicity of both mouthwashes against the HuGu cell line was higher than the OCC-18 cell line. During 24, 48, and 72 h, the mouthwash toxicity increased significantly.
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.