Efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing oral SARS-COV-2 load: a review.

Accumulated evidence has shown that the oral cavity may be an important reservoir for SARS-CoV-2. Some authors have suggested that the use of mouthrinses could reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the saliva. Thus, the aim of this review was to synthesize evidence about the efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. 2. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the efficacy of different mouthrinses in reducing salivary SARS-CoV-2 loads. Various active ingredients have been tested in these trials: 0.5%,1% and 2% povidone-iodine, 0.2% and 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX), 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), 0.075% CPC with Zinc lactate, 1% and 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (HP), 1.5% HP + 0.12% CHX and ß-cyclodextrin and citrox. The studies reported an intra-group reduction in the salivary levels of the virus, when compared with the baseline. However, the majority of these trials failed to demonstrate a significant inter-group difference between active groups and the control group relative to the decrease in salivary SARS-CoV-2 loads. Although promising, these results should be confirmed by larger trials.

Preprocedural mouthwashes for infection control in dentistry-an update.

OBJECTIVES: Aerosols and splatter are routinely generated in dental practice and can be contaminated by potentially harmful bacteria or viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents have been proposed as a potential measure for infection control in dental practice. This review article aims to summarize the clinical (and, if insufficient, preclinical) evidence on preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptic agents and to draw conclusions for dental practitioners. METHODS: Literature on preprocedural mouthwashes for reduction of bacterial or viral load in dental aerosols was searched and summarized. RESULTS: Preprocedural mouthwashes, particularly those containing chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), or essential oils (EO), can significantly reduce the bacterial load in dental aerosols. With respect to viruses such as HSV-1, there are too little clinical data to draw any clear recommendations. On the other hand, clinical data is consolidating that CPC-containing mouthwashes can temporarily reduce the intraoral viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Nevertheless, potential risks and side effects due to regular antiseptic use such as ecological effects or adaptation of bacteria need to be considered. CONCLUSIONS: The use of preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can be recommended according to currently available data, but further studies are needed, particularly on the effects on other viruses besides SARS-CoV-2. When selecting a specific antiseptic, the biggest data basis currently exists for CHX, CPC, EO, or combinations thereof. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Preprocedural mouthwashes containing antiseptics can serve as part of a bundle of measures for protection of dental personnel despite some remaining ambiguities and in view of potential risks and side effects.

Reduction of SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load with pre-procedural mouth rinses: a randomised, controlled, clinical trial.

Introduction The purpose of this study was to test the short-term efficacy of four commercial mouthwashes versus water in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity over clinically relevant time points.Methods In total, 32 subjects that were proven SARS-CoV-2-positive via polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based diagnostic test were recruited and randomised into five parallel arms. Cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared in saliva samples between the groups, as well as within the groups at baseline (pre-rinse), zero hours, one hour and two hours post-rinse, using SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR analysis.Results We observed a significant increase in Ct values in saliva samples collected immediately after rinsing with all the four mouthwashes - 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 1% povidone iodine, or Listerine - compared to water. A sustained increase in Ct values for up to two hours was only observed in the Listerine and chlorohexidine gluconate groups. We were not able to sufficiently power this clinical trial, so the results remain notional but encouraging and supportive of findings in other emerging mouthwash studies on COVID-19, warranting additional investigations.Conclusions Our evidence suggests that in a clinical setting, prophylactic rinses with Listerine or chlorhexidine gluconate can potentially reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the oral cavity for up to two hours. While limited in statistical power due to the difficulty in obtaining this data, we advocate for pre-procedural mouthwashing, like handwashing, as an economical and safe additional precaution to help mitigate the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from a potentially infected patient to providers.

Efficacy of a Mouthwash Containing CHX and CPC in SARS-CoV-2-Positive Patients: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Soon after the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprocedural mouthwashes were recommended for temporarily reducing intraoral viral load and infectivity of individuals potentially infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in order to protect medical personnel. Particularly, the antiseptic cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) has shown virucidal effects against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Therefore, the aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to investigate the efficacy of a commercially available mouthwash containing CPC and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) at 0.05% each in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients as compared to a placebo mouthwash. Sixty-one patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with onset of symptoms within the last 72 h were included in this study. Oropharyngeal specimens were taken at baseline, whereupon patients had to gargle mouth and throat with 20 mL test or placebo (0.9% NaCl) mouthwash for 60 s. After 30 min, further oropharyngeal specimens were collected. Viral load was analyzed by quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and infectivity of oropharyngeal specimens was analyzed by virus rescue in cell culture and quantified via determination of tissue culture infectious doses 50% (TCID50). Data were analyzed nonparametrically (α = 0.05). Viral load slightly but significantly decreased upon gargling in the test group (P = 0.0435) but not in the placebo group. Viral infectivity as measured by TCID50 also significantly decreased in the test group (P = 0.0313), whereas there was no significant effect but a trend in the placebo group. Furthermore, it was found that the specimens from patients with a vaccine booster exhibited significantly lower infectivity at baseline as compared to those without vaccine booster (P = 0.0231). This study indicates that a preprocedural mouthwash containing CPC and CHX could slightly but significantly reduce the viral load and infectivity in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients. Further studies are needed to corroborate these results and investigate whether the observed reductions in viral load and infectivity could translate into clinically useful effects in reducing COVID-19 transmission (German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00027812).

Efficacy of Cetylpyridinium Chloride mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a transmissible respiratory and multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Viral transmission occurs mainly through the spread of salivary droplets or aerosol from an infected subject. Studies suggest that salivary viral load is correlated with disease severity and probability of transmission. Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash has been found to be effective in reducing salivary viral load. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials is to evaluate the efficacy of the mouthwash ingredient cetylpyridinium chloride on salivary viral load in SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash with placebo and other mouthwash ingredients in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 301 patients that met the inclusion criteria were included. The studies reported the efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwashes in reduction on SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load compared to placebo and other mouthwash ingredients. CONCLUSION: Mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride are effective against salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in vivo. There is also the possibility that the use of mouthwash containing cetylpyridinium chloride in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects could reduce transmissibility and severity of COVID-19.

Mouth rinses efficacy on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load: A randomized clinical trial.

Considering the global trend to confine the COVID-19 pandemic by applying various preventive health measures, preprocedural mouth rinsing has been proposed to mitigate the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 in dental clinics. The study aimed to investigate the effect of different mouth rinses on salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients. This study was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, six-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial that investigated the effect of four mouth rinses (1% povidone-iodine, 1.5% hydrogen peroxide, 0.075% cetylpyridinium chloride, and 80 ppm hypochlorous acid) on salivary SARS-CoV-2 viral load relative to the distilled water and no-rinse control groups. The viral load was measured by quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT-qPCR) at baseline and 5, 30, and 60 min post rinsing. The viral load pattern within each mouth rinse group showed a reduction overtime; however, this reduction was only statistically significant in the hydrogen peroxide group. Further, a significant reduction in the viral load was observed between povidone-iodine, hydrogen peroxide, and cetylpyridinium chloride compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, indicating their late antiviral potential. Interestingly, a similar statistically significant reduction was also observed in the distilled water control group compared to the no-rinse group at 60 min, proposing mechanical washing of the viral particles through the rinsing procedure. Therefore, results suggest using preprocedural mouth rinses, particularly hydrogen peroxide, as a risk-mitigation step before dental procedures, along with strict adherence to other infection control measures.

Comparison of the 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash in a xerostomic population: a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS & BACKGROUND: Pilocarpine is an accepted treatment for xerostomia, but limited research has been conducted on the oral, topical form. The present study aimed to compare the effects of 1 and 2% pilocarpine mouthwash on xerostomic participants. METHODS: In this double-blind clinical trial study, 48 subjects with xerostomia were randomly divided into three groups to measure the effects of 1 and 2% pilocarpine and placebo mouthwashes on saliva levels. The amount of saliva in the 1st and 14th days was measured at 0, 45, 60, and 75 mins, while participants used their mouthwash three times a day for 14 days. On the 1st and 14th days, they filled out the information forms on xerostomia and the medicine's side effects before and after the intervention. RESULTS: On the 1st day, the mean salivary flow at 45, 60, and 75 mins in the 2 and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash were significantly higher than in the placebo mouthwash group (p < 0.05). On the 14th day, the mean salivary flow time at 45 mins in the 2% pilocarpine mouthwash group was significantly higher than in the placebo mouthwash group (p = 0.007). Furthermore, the mean salivary flow at 60 and 75 mins in the 2% (p < 0.001) and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash (p = 0.028) was significantly higher than in the placebo group. Moreover, the salivary flow in the 2% pilocarpine mouthwash group was significantly higher than the 1% pilocarpine mouthwash (p < 0.05) during these two times. No side effects were observed in any of the subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that 5 ml of 2 and 1% pilocarpine mouthwash for 2 weeks increased salivary flow in xerostomic participants compared to placebo without any side effects.

Conservative treatment with mouthwashes followed by tongue photo biomodulation therapy in Covid-19: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Oral manifestations of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including ulcers, herpetiform lesions, macules, and petechiae, among others, are becoming increasingly recognized, but there is little guidance on their treatment. Reported cases have described treatment with various mouthwashes containing antivirals, antifungals, antibiotics, anesthetics, or steroids. Our case report is unique in that we provide guidance on the judicious use of these medications, followed by photobiomodulation therapy if the manifestations are treatment resistant. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a 30-year-old Caucasian woman who tested positive for COVID-19 after developing nasal congestion and cough. Ten days after testing positive, she developed a systemic rash on her extremities and torso. At the same time, she developed swelling of the tongue lasting 1 hour, with subsequent appearance of oral lesions that resembled geographic tongue. She also had an irritable sensation on her tongue and some mild loss of sense of taste. We opted for conservative therapy, including mouth rinses containing lidocaine to be used every 6 hours. The patient used the mouth rinse therapy for 1 month and experienced a 90% improvement in her oral lesions and tongue sensitivity. However, she had repeated flares every 3 weeks over a 6-month period, and the steroid mouthwash achieved incomplete resolution. After three sessions of photobiomodulation therapy, she had no further flares or tongue sensitivity and the lesions healed. CONCLUSIONS: The implication of our report is that we promote the judicious use of topical antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and steroids for when they are indicated. We propose lidocaine-containing mouth rinses and steroid mouthwash as an initial, symptomatic treatment regimen for 'COVID-19 tongue.' If there is failure of resolution, we recommend photobiomodulation therapy.

USE OF MOUTHWASH AND DENTIFRICE CONTAINING AN ANTIMICROBIAL PHTHALOCYANINE DERIVATIVE FOR THE REDUCTION OF CLINICAL SYMPTOMS OF COVID-19: A RANDOMIZED TRIPLE-BLIND CLINICAL TRIAL.

PURPOSE: This clinical trial aimed to evaluate the use of mouthwash and dentifrice containing an antimicrobial phthalocyanine derivative (APD) to reduce the clinical symptoms in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomized, triple-blind clinical trial enrolled 134 patients aged 18 years or older who underwent COVID-19 testing through the use of nasopharyngeal swab RT-qPCR in a reference center for the diagnosis of COVID-19, had no clinical contraindications to mouthwash and gargle, and had access to cell phones with communication applications. According to the use of a mouthwash and dentifrice containing antimicrobial phthalocyanine derivatives (APD), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the APD or non-APD (control) group. All participants were instructed to floss twice a day, brush teeth for 2 minutes 3 times a day, and gargle/rinse (5 mL) for 1 min/3 times a day for 7 days. An online questionnaire was sent to collect data on the clinical symptoms of COVID-19 3 times: T0 (baseline before using the oral hygiene products), T3 (3 days after), and T7 (7 days after). The investigators, patients, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. The Mann-Whitney, Chi-Square, Fisher's exact, and Cochran's tests were used according to the nature of the variables studied, with the level of significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found in the prevalence of symptoms between groups at baseline. A statistically significant reduction in clinical symptoms was found in the control group (fatigue, shortness of breath, hoarse voice, sore throat, nasal congestion, and chest pain) and APD group (cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, hyposmia/anosmia, dysgeusia, hoarse voice, sore throat, nasal congestion, chest pain, diarrhea, and irritability/confusion) during the follow-up period. There were statistically significant differences, with a higher prevalence of symptoms in the control group at T3 and T7. Dysgeusia, sore throat, and irritability/confusion were less prevalent in the APD group at T3, and shortness of breath, hyposmia/anosmia, dysgeusia, hoarse voice, sore throat, diarrhea, and irritability/confusion were more prevalent in the control group at T7. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this methodology, the results demonstrated that the regular use of mouthwash and dentifrice-containing APD had a positive impact on the clinical symptoms, as reported by patients with COVID-19.

Preprocedural mouth rinses for preventing transmission of infectious diseases through aerosols in dental healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Aerosols and spatter are generated in a dental clinic during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) that use high-speed hand pieces. Dental healthcare providers can be at increased risk of transmission of diseases such as tuberculosis, measles and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) through droplets on mucosae, inhalation of aerosols or through fomites on mucosae, which harbour micro-organisms. There are ways to mitigate and contain spatter and aerosols that may, in turn, reduce any risk of disease transmission. In addition to personal protective equipment (PPE) and aerosol-reducing devices such as high-volume suction, it has been hypothesised that the use of mouth rinse by patients before dental procedures could reduce the microbial load of aerosols that are generated during dental AGPs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of preprocedural mouth rinses used in dental clinics to minimise incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers and reduce or neutralise contamination in aerosols. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and excluded laboratory-based studies. Study participants were dental patients undergoing AGPs. Studies compared any preprocedural mouth rinse used to reduce contaminated aerosols versus placebo, no mouth rinse or another mouth rinse. Our primary outcome was incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers and secondary outcomes were reduction in the level of contamination of the dental operatory environment, cost, change in mouth microbiota, adverse events, and acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data  MAIN RESULTS:  We included 17 studies with 830 participants aged 18 to 70 years. We judged three trials at high risk of bias, two at low risk and 12 at unclear risk of bias.  None of the studies measured our primary outcome of the incidence of infection in dental healthcare providers.  The primary outcome in the studies was reduction in the level of bacterial contamination measured in colony-forming units (CFUs) at distances of less than 2 m (intended to capture larger droplets) and 2 m or more (to capture droplet nuclei from aerosols arising from the participant's oral cavity). It is unclear what size of CFU reduction represents a clinically significant amount. There is low- to very low-certainty evidence that chlorhexidine (CHX) may reduce bacterial contamination, as measured by CFUs, compared with no rinsing or rinsing with water. There were similar results when comparing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) with no rinsing and when comparing CPC, essential oils/herbal mouthwashes or boric acid with water. There is very low-certainty evidence that tempered mouth rinses may provide a greater reduction in CFUs than cold mouth rinses. There is low-certainty evidence that CHX may reduce CFUs more than essential oils/herbal mouthwashes. The evidence for other head-to-head comparisons was limited and inconsistent.  The studies did not provide any information on costs, change in micro-organisms in the patient's mouth or adverse events such as temporary discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction or hypersensitivity. The studies did not assess acceptability of the intervention to patients or feasibility of implementation for dentists.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies measured the incidence of infection among dental healthcare providers. The studies measured only reduction in level of bacterial contamination in aerosols. None of the studies evaluated viral or fungal contamination. We have only low to very low certainty for all findings. We are unable to draw conclusions regarding whether there is a role for preprocedural mouth rinses in reducing infection risk or the possible superiority of one preprocedural rinse over another. Studies are needed that measure the effect of rinses on infectious disease risk among dental healthcare providers and on contaminated aerosols at larger distances with standardised outcome measurement.

Effect of oral antiseptics in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: evidence from a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

ABSTRACTBackground: In vitro studies have shown that several oral antiseptics have virucidal activity against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, mouthwashes have been proposed as an easy to implement strategy to reduce viral transmission. However, there are no data measuring SARS-CoV-2 viability after mouthwashes in vivo. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind, five-parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial, SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load (by quantitative PCR) and its infectious capacity (incubating saliva in cell cultures) have been evaluated before and after four different antiseptic mouthwashes and placebo in 54 COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Contrary to in vitro evidence, salivary viral load was not affected by any of the four tested mouthwashes. Viral culture indicated that cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) significantly reduced viral infectivity, but only at 1-hour post-mouthwash. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that some of the mouthwashes currently used to reduce viral infectivity are not efficient in vivo and, furthermore, that this effect is not immediate, generating a false sense of security.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04707742..

Cetylpyridinium Chloride Mouthwash to Reduce Shedding of Infectious SARS-CoV-2: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

The airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) via respiratory fluids and droplets suggests that mouthwashes containing substances with virucidal activity can help reduce viral spread. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to assess the virucidal activity of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes. Outpatients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection with or without symptoms were randomized to perform washes and gargles for 1 min with 15 mL of either colored distilled water or 0.07% CPC (Vitis CPC Protect) mouthwash. The study outcomes were the SARS-CoV-2 log10 viral RNA load and the nucleocapsid protein levels, both in saliva at 1 and 3 h after the intervention. In total, 118 patients were enrolled and randomized (mean [SD], age 46 [14] y). Thirteen of 118 participants (11%) did not complete follow-up or had insufficient sample volume for testing and were excluded from the analysis. The assessment of the viral load showed no significant differences between groups at any of the investigated points. However, the levels of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein of lysed viruses were significantly higher in the CPC group compared with the control group at 1 h (adjusted difference 269.3 pg/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 97.1-441.5) and at 3 h postintervention (561.1 pg/mL; 95% CI, 380.0-742.2). In nonhospitalized patients with asymptomatic or mild symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, a 0.07% CPC mouthwash, compared to placebo, was associated with a significant increase of nucleocapsid protein levels in saliva, indicating enhanced disruption of viral particles.

Repurposing povidone-iodine to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. This narrative review aims to examine the antiviral mechanisms of povidone-iodine, efficacy of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and safety of povidone-iodine to human epithelial cells and thyroid function. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for articles containing the keywords "povidone-iodine", "SARS-CoV-2" and "COVID-19" from database inception till 3 June 2021. RESULTS: Despite in vitro data supporting the anti-SARS-CoV-2 effects of povidone-iodine, findings from clinical studies revealed differences in treatment response depending on study settings (healthy vs. hospitalized individuals), treatment target (nasal vs. oral vs. pharynx), method of administration (oral rinse vs. gargle vs. throat spray) and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints (nasopharyngeal vs. saliva). One large-scale clinical trial demonstrated reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak. Povidone-iodine is also used to disinfect the oro-pharyngeal space prior to dental or otolaryngology procedures. Although existing data suggest minimal impact of povidone-iodine on thyroid function, high-quality safety data are presently lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.Key messagesAccumulating data suggest antiviral effects of povidone-iodine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Findings from clinical studies reveal differences in treatment response depending on study settings, treatment target, method of administration and choice of samples used to measure study endpoints. One large-scale clinical trial observed reduction in the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants who administered povidone-iodine 3 times daily during an active outbreak.Povidone-iodine application to the oropharyngeal space could complement existing non-pharmacological interventions to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection especially in high exposure settings.

Efficacy of Combining an Extraoral High-Volume Evacuator with Preprocedural Mouth Rinsing in Reducing Aerosol Contamination Produced by Ultrasonic Scaling.

The coronavirus disease pandemic has afforded dental professionals an opportunity to reconsider infection control during treatment. We investigated the efficacy of combining extraoral high-volume evacuators (eHVEs) with preprocedural mouth rinsing in reducing aerosol contamination by ultrasonic scalers. A double-masked, two-group, crossover randomized clinical trial was conducted over eight weeks. A total of 10 healthy subjects were divided into two groups; they received 0.5% povidone-iodine (PI), essential oil (EO), or water as preprocedural rinse. Aerosols produced during ultrasonic scaling were collected from the chest area (PC), dentist's mask, dentist's chest area (DC), bracket table, and assistant's area. Bacterial contamination was assessed using colony counting and adenosine triphosphate assays. With the eHVE 10 cm away from the mouth, bacterial contamination by aerosols was negligible. With the eHVE 20 cm away, more dental aerosols containing bacteria were detected at the DC and PC. Mouth rinsing decreased viable bacterial count by 31-38% (PI) and 22-33% (EO), compared with no rinsing. The eHVE prevents bacterial contamination when close to the patient's mouth. Preprocedural mouth rinsing can reduce bacterial contamination where the eHVE is positioned away from the mouth, depending on the procedure. Combining an eHVE with preprocedural mouth rinsing can reduce bacterial contamination in dental offices.

A Narrative Review of the Diagnosis, Etiology, and Treatment of Halitosis Over the Past Three Decades.

Although the term "halitosis" was first coined in 1874, people have become increasingly aware of this problem more recently during the COVID-19 pandemic due to extensive wearing of protective masks. In fact, following dental caries and periodontal disease, halitosis is the third most prevalent reason for patients going to the dentist. Due to multifactorial etiology, the diagnosis of halitosis requires a rigorous health/dental/social history, a clinical examination, and measurements. The treatment ranges from the use of dentifrices, mouthwashes, tongue scraping, and masking products, and more recently includes photodynamic therapy, probiotics, and ozone. The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the published literature concerning halitosis over the past 30 years and discuss the diagnosis, etiology, and treatment of the disease.

Impact of Oral Rinsing with Octenidine Based Solution on SARS-CoV-2 Loads in Saliva of Infected Patients an Exploratory Study.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the in-vivo effect of an antiseptic mouth rinse with Octenisept plus phenoxyethanol (OCT + PE) on the oral SARS-CoV-2 load was investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In eight COVID-19 patients, saliva samples were obtained before mouth rinsing and at five time points post rinsing with OCT + PE (n = 47 saliva samples in total). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected and quantified by RT-qPCR and virus isolation in cell culture was performed to assess for infectivity. RESULTS: Immediately after mouth rinsing (1 min), a significant reduction of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads in saliva was achieved (p = 0.03) with 7/8 participants having SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels undetectable by RT-qPCR. At later time points, RNA levels returned to baseline levels in all study participants. Infectivity of saliva samples was demonstrated by successful virus isolation from saliva samples collected at later time points. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that saliva samples from COVID-19 patients are infectious and demonstrates that mouth rinsing with OCT + PE temporarily leads to a significant reduction of the SARS-CoV-2 load in saliva. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mouth rinsing with OCT + PE could provide a simple, rapid, and efficient method for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention, particularly in the field of dental and respiratory medicine.

The effect of mouthrinses on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Considering that the oral cavity is a major entryway and reservoir for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the aim of the authors was to perform a systematic review of in vivo and in vitro studies to assess the effectiveness of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, and bioRxiv databases, including in vitro and in vivo studies assessing the virucidal effect of mouthrinses on SARS-CoV-2 or surrogates. From a total of 1,622 articles retrieved, the authors included 39 in this systematic review. RESULTS: Povidone-iodine was the most studied mouthrinse (14 in vitro and 9 in vivo studies), frequently showing significant reductions in viral load in in vitro assays. Similarly, cetylpyridinium chloride also showed good results, although it was evaluated in fewer studies. Chlorhexidine gluconate and hydrogen peroxide showed conflicting results on SARS-CoV-2 load reduction in both in vitro and in vivo studies. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Povidone-iodine-based mouthrinses appear to be the best option as an oral prerinse in the dental context for SARS-CoV-2 viral load reduction. Although the results of primary studies are relevant, there is a need for more in vivo studies on mouthrinses, in particular, randomized controlled clinical trials, to better understand their effect on SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infection prevention.

Chlorhexidine mouthwash reduces the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate on the salivary load of SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed on 100 participants positive for SARS-CoV-2. In the test group (n = 50), volunteers gargled with a mouthwash containing 15 ml of 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate for 1 min, while the control group (n = 50) used a placebo. Saliva samples were obtained before (baseline) and 5 and 60 min after using the solutions. Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays (qRT-PCR) were carried out and the cycle threshold (Ct) was computed. The chi-square test and t-test were used for group comparison (p ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: The differences in Ct values between the 5-min evaluation and baseline (test group: 2.19 ± 4.30; control: -0.40 ± 3.87, p = 0.002) and between 60 min and baseline (test group: 2.45 ± 3.88; control: 0.76 ± 4.41, p = 0.05) were significantly greater in the test group, revealing a reduction of viral load. Furthermore, there was a reduction in the load of SARS-CoV-2 in 72% of the volunteers using chlorhexidine versus 30% in the control group (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Chlorhexidine gluconate (0.12%) was effective in reducing salivary SARS-CoV-2 load for at least 60 min.