ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2026
In Vitro Study to Evaluate the Antibacterial Effect of an Oxidising Agent on Ex Vivo Biofilm.
Article in Oral health & preventive 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the antibacterial effect of a mouthrinse and a fluid, both containing an oxidising agent, compared with saline (negative control) and chlorhexidine (0.2%, positive control), after application to 24-hour-old biofilms. METHODS AND MATERIALS: After 24 participants had refrained from all oral hygiene measures for a period of 24 h, a voluminous biofilm sample was taken from the buccal sites of molars, smeared on a microscope slide and divided into four parts. The four samples were each coated with 5 µl of a mouth rinse solution (BMmr, blueM mouth rinsing solution, NL), a fluid (BMfl, blueM oxygen fluid, NL), chlorhexidine 0.2% (CHX) and NaCl. After 1 min, excess liquid was suctioned off, and biofilms were stained with vital fluorescent dyes for 2 min. The stained samples were covered with a cover slip, and four pictures per sample were recorded with a digital camera under the fluorescence microscope. A special image analysis program used the red and green pixels to calculate the percentage of metabolically active bacteria in the entire biofilm sample (dental biofilm vitality, VF%).
resultsBoth BMmr and BMfl reduced VF to 18.46 ± 9.59% and 19.53 ± 12.17% significantly (P 0.001) compared to NaCl, with values of 59.88 ± 10.14%. CHX revealed values of 14.35 ± 6.56%, values that were not significantly lower (P 0.001) than the other active solutions.
conclusionBoth BMmr and BMfl demonstrated a statistically significant antibacterial effect compared to NaCl and showed a similar effect to CHX. However, clinical trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of both products containing oxidising agents when used as oral rinses.
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.