Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41198897›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025

Effects of chlorhexidine and a polyherbal mouthwash on the oral microbiome and user satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial.

Waris Wattanawongwan, Annop Krasaesin, Thutchima Khieota, Vivat Thongchotchat, Thantrira Porntaveetus, Paswach Wiriyakijja

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Waris WattanawongwanDual-Degree Program in Oral Biology D.D.S.-M.Sc, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Annop KrasaesinCenter of Excellence in Precision Medicine and Digital Health, Department of Physiology, Geriatric Dentistry and Special Patients Care International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thutchima KhieotaCenter of Excellence in Precision Medicine and Digital Health, Department of Physiology, Geriatric Dentistry and Special Patients Care International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Vivat ThongchotchatCenter of Excellence in Precision Medicine and Digital Health, Department of Physiology, Geriatric Dentistry and Special Patients Care International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thantrira PorntaveetusCenter of Excellence in Precision Medicine and Digital Health, Department of Physiology, Geriatric Dentistry and Special Patients Care International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. thantrira.p@chula.ac.th.
Paswach WiriyakijjaCenter of Excellence in Precision Medicine and Digital Health, Department of Physiology, Geriatric Dentistry and Special Patients Care International Program, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Paswach.w@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to comparatively evaluate the effects of polyherbal, chlorhexidine (CHX), and normal saline (NCC) mouthwashes on oral microbiome composition, microbial metabolic pathways, and patient-reported outcomes, with the goal of assessing the potential of polyherbal mouthwash as a natural alternative to CHX for managing gingivitis, while aiming to minimize CHX-associated microbial dysbiosis.

methodsA randomized, double-blind trial was conducted among 27 patients with gingivitis, randomly assigned to polyherbal, CHX, or NCC mouthwash groups. Participants used the assigned mouthwash twice daily for 7 days. Saliva samples were analyzed via 16 S rRNA sequencing to assess microbial diversity (alpha and beta) and taxonomic composition. Differential taxa and pathways were identified using FDR-corrected Wilcoxon tests and log₂ fold-change analysis. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated using numerical rating scales (NRS).

resultsThe polyherbal mouthwash demonstrated significantly higher patient acceptability than CHX and NCC, with superior scores in taste, smell, texture, moisture retention, overall satisfaction, and willingness for continued use (p < 0.05). While CHX exhibited strong antimicrobial activity, its alcohol-containing formulation markedly disrupted microbial diversity, increased potentially dysbiotic genera (Streptococcus, Porphyromonas), and altered 23 metabolic pathways associated with dysbiosis. In contrast, the polyherbal mouthwash-which also contained cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)- selectively increased beneficial genera (Amnipila, Absconditabacteriales [SR1], Peptostreptococcus), preserved overall microbial diversity, and modulated only two pathways, notably upregulating L-isoleucine biosynthesis.

conclusionThe polyherbal mouthwash represents a promising alternative to CHX, demonstrating selective microbial modulation, preservation of microbiome stability, and enhanced patient acceptability. These findings support its potential integration into routine oral healthcare as a microbiome-friendly and patient-acceptable solution. Further studies are warranted to evaluate CPC-free polyherbal formulations across larger and more diverse populations over extended durations.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineGingivitisMicrobiotaMouthMouthwashesPatient SatisfactionAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineMouthwashes16S rRNA sequencingChlorhexidine alternativeGingivitisGingivitis-associated dysbiosisOral microbiomePatient satisfactionPolyherbal mouthwashPrevotella

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.