Trial reportBrazilian dental journal2025
Comparison of Blue®m and chlorhexidine mouthwash on oral health of intubated patients in intensive care unit.
Trial report in Brazilian dental journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral care interventions in adult intensive care unit patients: A systematic review of oral and respiratory outcomes.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical application of a novel gravity-weighted continuous oral suction dental pad in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in intubated patients.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of oxygen-releasing mouthwash and chlorhexidine as adjuncts in gingivitis treatment: A randomized controlled trial.Bioinformation · 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
This research aims to evaluate whether blue®m mouthwash can be used as a suitable alternative to chlorhexidine mouthwash for improving the oral health of intubated patients in ICUs. This is a randomized clinical study. The sample comprised 50 mechanically ventilated adults randomly allocated in a block of 10 to the 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) and the blue®m group. The patients' oral and tracheal secretions were collected in four different periods: T1 - 24h after intubation (without sanitation); T2 - 24h after intubation (with sanitation); T3 - 48h after intubation (without sanitation); T4 - 48h after intubation (with sanitation). Bacterial and fungal identification was performed. The presence of bacteria was graded as abundant, moderate, and scarce. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed. Fifty patients with a mean age of 62.7 ± 13.3 years (20 to 86 years) were treated, 24 in the CHX group and 26 in the blue®m group. The most frequent pathogens in the patient's oral environment were Acinetobacter baumanii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumonia. Analysis of the effectiveness of both antiseptics indicated statistically significant differences in the median values of the microbial population between collection periods in the CHX (χ2=13.2, p=0.004) and blue®m (χ2=9.49, p=0.023) group. No significant statistical difference in microbial population was found between the groups (T1- p=0.375; T2 - p=0.955; T3 - p=0.765; T4 - p=0.898). Blue®m mouthwash effectively reduces the oral microbial population and does not differ from chlorhexidine in terms of reduction. Blue®m mouthwash can be used as an alternative to chlorhexidine for mechanical ventilator patients in the ICU.
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.