ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Effect of a cannabidiol-based mouthwash on dental enamel properties and biofilm control: an In situ study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the antibiofilm activity of experimental mouthwash containing different concentrations of cannabidiol (CBD) and the in situ effects on the physical and mechanical properties of dental enamel.
methodsBovine enamel fragments (6 × 6 × 2 mm) were mounted in intraoral appliances worn by 14 participants in a crossover design. Mouthwash containing CBD (0%, 0.01%, 0.05%, and 0.1%) and 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) were tested. Each experimental phase lasted 7 days, separated by washout periods. One side of the appliance was exposed to a cariogenic challenge (20% sucrose) prior to treatment. Surface roughness (Ra), microhardness (%KHN), and color change (ΔE00) were measured before and after treatments. Biofilm and yeast counts (log10 CFU) were quantified, and enamel surfaces were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests and Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's test (P < 0.05).
resultsSucrose did not significantly affect Ra (P > 0.05), although CBD 0.1% showed higher roughness than CHX under sucrose exposure (P < 0.05). No significant differences in %KHN were observed among treatments; however, sucrose reduced microhardness in the placebo and CBD 0.01% groups (P < 0.05). CHX exhibited the highest ΔE00 values (P < 0.05). Biofilm formation was similar among CHX, CBD 0.05%, and CBD 0.1% (P > 0.05), while CHX showed lower yeast counts than CBD 0.01% and CBD 0.1% (P < 0.05).
conclusionCBD 0.05% demonstrated potential for biofilm control without adversely affecting enamel properties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides evidence supporting a natural compound-based mouthwash as a clinically viable alternative to chlorhexidine, showing similar efficacy and no associated adverse effects under the conditions tested.
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.