Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41627021›Full record

Trial reportJournal of periodontology2026

Electrolyzed saline as an alternative to chlorhexidine: Antimicrobial and biofilm volume outcomes in a 4-day non-brushing randomized controlled clinical trial.

Katja Povšič, Haris Munjaković, Naiera Zayed, Wim Teughels, Katja Seme, Aleš Fidler, Rok Gašperšič

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of periodontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05709015 (Evaluation of a Mouthwash Formulation Containing Neutral Electrolysed Water on De-novo Plaque Formation, Gingival Inflammation, MMP-8 Activity and the Oral Microbiome), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT05709015 phase2completednot on this map

Evaluation of a Mouthwash Formulation Containing Neutral Electrolysed Water on De-novo Plaque Formation, Gingival Inflammation, MMP-8 Activity and the Oral Microbiome

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of LjubljanaRan2023 to 2023Enrolled16ConditionsGingivitisArmsNeutral electrolyzed water, Placebo, Chlorhexidine digluconate
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

7 authors.

Katja PovšičDepartment of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5440-994X
Haris MunjakovićDepartment of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Naiera ZayedDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7773-8199
Wim TeughelsDepartment of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7675-5643
Katja SemeInstitute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Aleš FidlerDepartment of Endodontics and Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Rok GašperšičDepartment of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, Republic of Slovenia P3-0293Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, Republic of Slovenia TP-2023026
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe biofilm-inhibitory effects of electrolyzed saline (EOS) vary widely due to differences in formulations and treatment methods. This study analyzed the impact of EOS on key oral microbial species and used serial 3D-intraoral scans to evaluate its effects on de novo biofilm formation.

methodsThis was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over, 4-day, non-brushing, plaque-regrowth study on periodontally healthy individuals. Each subject participated in three trial arms. During each 4-day arm, the subjects refrained from mechanical oral hygiene. Instead, they rinsed their oral cavities twice-daily with EOS, 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), or placebo. De novo plaque accumulation after 4 days was assessed as the primary outcome using the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) and the volumetric plaque index (VPI). qPCR analyses of key-microbial species and measurements of active-matrix-metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP-8) in gingival crevicular fluid were performed to complement the clinical data.

resultsThe biofilm-inhibitory effect of CHX was superior to that of EOS at the level of TMQHPlI and VPI, although both significantly reduced biofilms compared with placebo. The broad-spectrum antimicrobial effect of CHX caused significant reductions in overall bacterial loads, while the action of EOS was more selective. Both CHX and EOS markedly reduced the bacterial loads of Tannerella forsythia; CHX remained more effective against Treponema denticola. In contrast, only EOS demonstrated stronger antimicrobial effects against Fusobacterium nucleatum and Prevotella intermedia while showing no significant impact on periodontal commensals. No significant effects on aMMP-8 were observed.

conclusionsEOS showed substantial, but inferior biofilm-inhibitory, effects compared with CHX. However, EOS had more selective and dysbiosis-controlling effects than CHX. The clinical trial was registered at Clintrials.gov under no. NCT05709015. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study investigated the effectiveness of electrolyzed saline (EOS) in preventing biofilm build-up on teeth. The efficacy of EOS mouthwash was compared with a positive control (chlorhexidine, CHX) and a negative control (distilled water). A method based on 3D scans of teeth was used to measure changes in the biofilm volume. In the study, participants stopped brushing their teeth for 4 days and rinsed their mouths twice daily with either EOS, CHX, or a placebo instead. They were then assessed for biofilm levels and changes in oral bacteria numbers. The results showed that CHX was more effective than EOS in reducing biofilm, although both were more effective than placebo. Chlorhexidine significantly lowered harmful bacteria but also negatively affected the beneficial bacteria. On the other hand, EOS also reduced specific harmful bacteria, but did not lower the beneficial ones as much. Overall, while EOS was less effective at reducing biofilm than CHX, it was better at maintaining a healthy balance of oral bacteria.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalBiofilmsChlorhexidineDental PlaqueSaline SolutionAdultBacterial LoadBacteroidesCross-Over StudiesDental Plaque IndexDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFusobacterium nucleatumGingival Crevicular FluidHumansMaleAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineMatrix Metalloproteinase 8MouthwashesPlacebosSaline Solutionantisepticschlorhexidinedental biofilmelectrolyzed salinemouthwashoral microbiology

Identifiers

PMID41627021
PMCPMC13350408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.