ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
In vitro analysis of various mouthwashes: cytotoxic, apoptotic, genotoxic and antibacterial effects.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacovigilance Analysis of Drug-Induced Stomatitis: Insights From Twenty-One Years of Real-World Data.International dental journal · 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
- Unveiling the bioactive landscape of drug inactive ingredients (DIGs) using deep transfer learning.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026Article
- A chlorine releasing solution as an alternative for dental biofilm control.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Application and Potential of Local Drug Delivery Systems for Antibacterial Treatment of Periodontitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation of the biocompatibility and antibacterial efficacy of various toothpaste formulations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to investigate the cytotoxic, apoptotic, and genotoxic effects of eleven mouthwashes, which are hypothesized to pose potential toxic risks to oral mucosal tissues, through in-vitro experiments using human gingival fibroblast(hGF) cell cultures and to compare the antibacterial efficacy of these mouthwashes. MATERIALS AND
methodsHealthy hGF cell lines were derived from individuals under ethical standards. The cytotoxic effects of the mouthwashes (Colgate 2in1,Colgate Optic White, Colgate Plax, Curasept, Elmex, Kloroben, Listerine Cool Mint, Listerine Zero, Meridol, Oral-B Pro Expert, Sensodyne Pronamel) were assessed in real-time using the xCELLigence system, which monitored cellular activity at 5-minute intervals over 72 h. Apoptotic effects of the IC50 concentrations of the mouthwashes on hGF cells were evaluated using Annexin V and Caspase-3 assays. Genotoxic effects at IC50 concentrations were analyzed through the Alexa Fluor
resultsAccording to the analysis of the IC50 values, Meridol was found to be the most cytotoxic mouthwash, while Listerine Zero was the least cytotoxic. The mouthwashes can be ranked in order of their cytotoxicity as follows: Meridol(0.011) > Elmex(0.029) > Colgate 2in1(0.187) > Colgate Plax(0.478) > Colgate Optic White (0.534) > Sensodyne Pronamel(0.577) > Oral-B Pro Expert(0.638) > Kloroben(0.766) > Curasept(1.872) > Listerine Cool Mint(2.334) > Listerine Zero(7.267)(p < 0.05). The Annexin V assay showed no major apoptotic impacts on human gingival fibroblast cell line at the IC50 values of the mouthwashes, except for Colgate Plax, Kloroben, and Oral B Pro Expert. The IC50 values of the evaluated mouthwashes did not show a significant apoptotic effect on the hGF cell line as evaluated by Caspase-3 assay and no significant genotoxic effect was observed as evaluated by H2AX assay(p > 0.05). Colgate Plax showed the most effective antibacterial effect on Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus rhamnosus(p < 0.05).
conclusionMouthwash formulations showed varying cytotoxic effects on hGF and different antibacterial effectiveness. Essential oil-containing mouthwashes may be preferable to those with chlorhexidine or cetylpyridinium chloride, as they demonstrate less cytotoxicity, are more biocompatible, and have antibacterial efficacy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The low cytotoxicity and potent antibacterial properties of essential oils render them a more safer choice for inclusion in mouthwash compositions.
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.