IADR Abstract Archives
The Effect of Chlorine Dioxide on the Oral Hygiene – A Systematic Review
Objectives: There is a need for new effective and selective oral rinses. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of chlorine dioxide-containing mouthwashes in comparison with other mouth rinses in healthy adults using index values for oral hygiene.
Methods: This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guideline. The database search was conducted from Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.gov, Ebsco, EMBASE, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. We searched for “chlorine dioxide” AND “oral”, Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) were included, written English. The primary outcome was the alteration of plaque index (PI), the secondary outcome was the gingival index (GI). Bacterial counts were also investigated. The effectiveness of chlorine dioxide was compared to other previously established treatments such as chlorhexidine and herbal extracts. For the Risk of Bias assessment the Cochrane Collaboration Tools was used. Statistical analysis for data heterogeneity was performed by Q-value and I2-tests.
Results: 364 articles were found in the databases. After the selection process, only four RCTs could be included in the analysis, which did not permit to perform meta-analysis, but only a systematic review. The heterogeneity of data was low (Q-value: 0.232; p value: 0.629; I2: 0). There were no statistical differences between the chlorine dioxide treatment and the other effective mouth rinses in PI (0.723±0.132 vs. 0.670±0.129; 95%; confidence intervals (CIs): 0.464-0.981 vs. 0.417-0.923, respectively) and in GI (0.779±0.150 vs. 0.685±0.124; 95% CIs: 0.484-1.074 vs. 0.443-0.928, respectively). Similarly, there was no difference between groups in the bacterial counts.
Conclusions: The use of chlorine dioxide reduces the plaque index and gingival index as well as the bacterial count in the oral cavity similar to other effective oral rinses. But the evidence is week due to the low number of RCTs. Therefore, further investigations are needed in the field. Supported by EFOP-3.6.2.-16-2017-0006 and GINOP 2.3.2-15-2016-00048.
Methods: This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guideline. The database search was conducted from Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trials.gov, Ebsco, EMBASE, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. We searched for “chlorine dioxide” AND “oral”, Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) were included, written English. The primary outcome was the alteration of plaque index (PI), the secondary outcome was the gingival index (GI). Bacterial counts were also investigated. The effectiveness of chlorine dioxide was compared to other previously established treatments such as chlorhexidine and herbal extracts. For the Risk of Bias assessment the Cochrane Collaboration Tools was used. Statistical analysis for data heterogeneity was performed by Q-value and I2-tests.
Results: 364 articles were found in the databases. After the selection process, only four RCTs could be included in the analysis, which did not permit to perform meta-analysis, but only a systematic review. The heterogeneity of data was low (Q-value: 0.232; p value: 0.629; I2: 0). There were no statistical differences between the chlorine dioxide treatment and the other effective mouth rinses in PI (0.723±0.132 vs. 0.670±0.129; 95%; confidence intervals (CIs): 0.464-0.981 vs. 0.417-0.923, respectively) and in GI (0.779±0.150 vs. 0.685±0.124; 95% CIs: 0.484-1.074 vs. 0.443-0.928, respectively). Similarly, there was no difference between groups in the bacterial counts.
Conclusions: The use of chlorine dioxide reduces the plaque index and gingival index as well as the bacterial count in the oral cavity similar to other effective oral rinses. But the evidence is week due to the low number of RCTs. Therefore, further investigations are needed in the field. Supported by EFOP-3.6.2.-16-2017-0006 and GINOP 2.3.2-15-2016-00048.