ReviewOdontology2026
Chlorhexidine-based protocols for complete denture disinfection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Odontology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of chlorhexidine-based protocols for the disinfection of complete dentures. A comprehensive search was conducted in the Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane, LILACS databases, and in gray literature sources (ProQuest and Google Scholar) up to September 2024. Clinical studies evaluating the reduction of microbial load (CFU) on complete dentures after chlorhexidine use across different concentrations, vehicles, and application protocols were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of different protocols (RevMan). The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADEpro-GDT. A total of twenty-two studies were included (κ = 0.877), and five met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Interventions included immersion, mouth rinses, sprays, and topical application, with chlorhexidine concentrations ranging from 0.12% to 4%. Chlorhexidine showed a significant reduction in CFU counts, with mean differences of -1.11 (95% CI: -1.57 to -0.64; p < 0.00001) for 0.12% up to 7 days, and - 2.50 (95% CI: -4.57 to -0.43; p = 0.02) for 0.2% up to 30 days. The pooled analysis of both concentrations also revealed a significant microbial reduction (CFU/mL) over time of -1.66 (95% CI: -2.75 to -0.57; p < 0.003). Chlorhexidine demonstrated effectiveness in disinfecting complete dentures regardless of concentration and mode of use. However, despite the favorable outcomes, further standardized clinical studies are needed to establish optimized and reproducible protocols for dental practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42230427What 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.