ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the antibacterial efficacy of chlorhexidine-chlorine dioxide (CHX-CDO) mouthwash formulations against major halitosis-related pathogens: Materials and methods: Five bacterial strains were cultured anaerobically. Experimental mouthwashes with varying concentrations of CHX (0.01-0.2%) and CDO (0.05-0.1%), labeled solution A-J, were tested. Agar diffusion assays measured inhibition zones. MICs were determined by broth microdilution with 24 h anaerobic incubation and OD600 measurement. The time-kill test quantified CFUs from serial dilutions at time points (0, 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h). Results: All CHX-CDO mouthwash combinations inhibited bacterial growth, with A (0.05% CHX + 0.05% CDO), C (0.2% CHX + 0.05% CDO), F (0.2% CHX + 0.1% CDO), and J (CHX 0.02/CDO 0.1) showing the largest inhibition zones and G (CHX 0.01/CDO 0.05) and H (CHX 0.02/CDO 0.05) exhibiting the most favorable MIC values. Time-kill assays confirmed sustained bactericidal effects for low concentration-CHX/0.05% CDO formulations. Significant differences in antibacterial activity were observed among the formulations ( Conclusion: Low-dose CHX combined with 0.05% CDO mouthwash maintains antibacterial efficacy against halitosis-associated pathogens, suggesting a promising CHX dose reduction while preserving effectiveness.
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.