Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Comparison of gargling and swabbing methods for delivering pre-procedural povidone-iodine mouthrinse: a randomised crossover trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06272019 (Alternative Application Methods of Pre-procedural Povidone Iodine Mouthrinse), which is not on this 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.
Alternative Application Methods of Pre-procedural Povidone Iodine Mouthrinse
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPovidone-iodine (PVP-I) mouthrinse is widely used as a pre-procedural antiseptic because of its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. Its effectiveness depends on maintaining sufficient iodine levels in saliva, enabling direct antimicrobial action within the oral cavity. However, the conventional gargling method may not be suitable for individuals with swallowing difficulties, limiting its practical application. This study aimed to compare salivary iodine concentrations achieved by two delivery methods—gargling and swabbing—using 0.2% PVP-I mouthrinse at specific post-application time intervals.
methodsA randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted in 25 healthy Thai adults aged 18–30 years. Participants received either gargling with 10 mL of 0.2% PVP-I or swabbing with 2 mL of 0.2% PVP-I for 1 min, followed by a 48-hour washout period before crossing over to the alternate intervention. Unstimulated saliva samples were collected at baseline and at 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 120 min after mouthrinse application. Iodine concentrations were determined using inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Differences in salivary iodine levels were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultBaseline salivary iodine concentrations did not differ significantly between interventions (p = 0.579). Gargling produced significantly higher peak iodine concentrations than swabbing (2,774 ppm vs. 1,061 ppm; p < 0.001). Salivary iodine levels declined significantly over the first 20 min in both groups (p < 0.001), followed by similar clearance patterns over time. Throughout the 120-minute observation period, iodine concentrations achieved by both delivery methods remained above the the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended threshold for viral inactivation (75–150 ppm).
conclusionBoth gargling and swabbing with 0.2% PVP-I resulted in immediate peak salivary iodine concentrations exceeding the CDC-recommended threshold for viral inactivation. While gargling achieved higher peak levels, swabbing maintained iodine concentrations above this threshold for the duration of observation. These findings suggest that swabbing may represent a feasible alternative delivery method in situations where gargling is not practical. Further studies evaluating direct antimicrobial outcomes and broader patient populations are warranted to clarify clinical effectiveness.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06272019. Registered on February 22, 2024.
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.