ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2026
Evaluation of the Effects of Various Types of Mouthwash on Enamel and Cementum of Permanent Teeth: An In Vitro Study.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role and Relevance of Warm Saline Mouth Rinses in Contemporary Dental Practice: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Effects of Various Types of Mouthwash on Enamel and Cementum of Permanent Teeth: An In Vitro Study.TheScientificWorldJournal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMouthwashes are widely utilised for their affordability, ease of use and oral hygiene benefits. However, indiscriminate use of these over-the-counter mouthwashes can cause morphological changes in enamel and cementum, compromising tooth structure. This study evaluates the change in the surface roughness, surface hardness and colour of enamel and cementum after the use of various mouthwashes using surface profilometry, Vickers hardness tester and spectrophotometry, respectively, for 7 and 15 days. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Five common mouthwashes, namely, Colgate Plax, Listerine, Himalaya, Chlorhexidine and warm saline water were tested on 10 extracted permanent teeth in each group. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally from crown to root, embedded in acrylic and examined for defects. Baseline values for colour, hardness and roughness were recorded before immersing the samples in mouthwash as per the manufacturers' instructions. Postimmersion measurements were taken at specified intervals.
resultsA significant decrease in enamel hardness after 7 days with chlorhexidine (108.28 ± 85.17), Himalaya (104.02 ± 94.22), warm saline (85.42 ± 70.9) and Listerine (55.32 ± 83.68) was observed, but not with Colgate Plax. Cementum hardness decreased over 15 days but was not statistically significant. The greatest increase in surface roughness was seen in saline followed by Himalaya whereas the decrease was seen in chlorhexidine and Colgate Plax at the end of 7 days. Listerine caused the highest colour change in enamel. Since trends towards decreased hardness and increased roughness were noted, long-term usage could pose clinical concerns. Warm saline showed subtle yet significant changes, indicating the need for further investigation.
conclusionThese findings underscore the importance of regulating mouthwash use and recommending it only when the benefits outweigh the risks.
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.