ArticleBrazilian oral research2026
Effect of antimicrobial oral rinse use on prognostic scores in critically ill patients.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared oral hygiene and prognostic scores in intensive care unit patients who were either exposed or not exposed to an antimicrobial oral rinse. Both the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS 3), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score - recorded on the day of admission (D1) and on the day of the oral examination (Dv) - were retrieved from electronic medical records. Oral data obtained through intraoral examination were used to calculate the Critical Patient Oral Hygiene Index (CPOHI). Eighty-four patients were included in the group exposed to the oral rinse containing chlorhexidine, cetylpyridinium chloride, and propolis extract (CCPG), whereas 42 patients were assigned to the reference group (RefG). Gingival inflammation (47.6% vs. 16.7%; p < 0.001) and spontaneous bleeding (9.5% vs. 0%; p = 0.004) were more frequent in the RefG than in the CCPG, respectively. Oral hygiene was satisfactory in 53.2% of patients, with no difference between groups. Median SAPS3 and SOFA Dv were worse in the RefG. Patients in CCPG with poor oral hygiene (6.0 (0-14)) showed worse SOFA Dv scores than those with good oral hygiene (1.0 (0-13), p=0.001). Intubation was the only variable negatively associated with all prognostic scores in the multivariate analysis. Critically ill patients exposed to the antimicrobial oral rinse showed better prognostic scores and a lower frequency of gingival inflammation and spontaneous bleeding, supporting the indication of the antimicrobial rinse in oral hygiene protocols for critically ill patients.
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.