ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of the Efficacy of Pre-procedural Rinses Using 0.2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Versus a Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide Mouthwash in Patients With Chronic Periodontitis: A Clinico-Microbiological Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAerosols produced during dental procedures carry a high microbial load, increasing the risk of cross-infection between patients and dental professionals. The use of pre-procedural mouth rinses is a simple, cost-effective, and practical measure to reduce microbial contamination in aerosols generated during dental treatment.
aimThis study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and 0.1% stabilized chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) when used as pre-procedural rinses in patients with chronic periodontitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 48 systemically healthy individuals with chronic periodontitis were randomly allocated to two groups: Group I (CHX) and Group II (ClO₂), with 24 participants in each group. Unstimulated saliva samples were obtained before and after rinsing. Microbial evaluation was done by quantifying aerobic and anaerobic colony-forming units (CFUs). Participants also recorded their perception of taste and odor using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Data were analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests, with significance considered at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsCHX showed a significant reduction (81.96%) in aerobic culture, whereas ClO₂ showed no statistical significance in reduction (40.91%) in aerobic culture. Both rinses produced a significant decline in anaerobic CFU counts; Group I showed an 86.05% reduction, and Group II showed a 79.75% reduction in microbial load. ClO₂ was rated higher on the VAS scale, reflecting better taste and odor acceptability.
conclusionBoth CHX and ClO₂ effectively lowered anaerobic bacterial counts. While CHX had a stronger effect against aerobic bacteria, ClO₂ offered greater patient acceptability, supporting its use as a viable alternative in routine dental practice.
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.