Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral irrigator (OI) in controlling dental plaque and gingivitis. Methods: Ninety participants diagnosed with gingivitis were randomly assigned to two groups, given a toothbrush combined with OI (WaterPik®) (test) or a toothbrush alone (control). The Turesky-Modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (T-QH), Modified Gingival Index (MGI), Bleeding Index (BI), and percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP%) were evaluated at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. The full analysis set (FAS) and per-protocol set (PPS) were analyzed. Adverse events were recorded through electronic diaries and examinations. Results: Of the 90 participants, the efficacy was assessed in the following numbers (FAS/PPS): test (45/33) and control (43/38). Compared with the control, MGI, BI, and BOP% were significantly lower in the test group after 4 weeks (4 weeks: p = 0.017, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively; 8 weeks and 12 weeks: p < 0.001 for all, FAS); T-QH was significantly lower after 8 weeks (8 weeks: p = 0.033; 12 weeks: p = 0.006, FAS). Transient gingival bleeding may be associated with OI. Self-reported pain and dentin hypersensitivity symptoms were similar between groups. Conclusions: As adjuncts to toothbrushing, OI demonstrated significantly better efficacy in controlling dental plaque and gingival inflammation with no substantial safety hazards.

Background Mouthwashes were convenient adjuncts to mechanical cleaning procedures. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mouthwashes on oral microorganisms and gingivitis in orthodontic patients. Methods By April 16, 2022, multiple databases and grey literature were searched based on the PICOS strategy. Randomized controlled trials in orthodontic patients evaluating the efficacy of mouthwashes with at least one microbial parameter and/or plaque- and/or gingival inflammation-related index were included. Relevant data were extracted, and the risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane's tool. Individual mean and standard deviation of the outcomes in mouthwashes and placebos/blank controls were pooled to estimate the weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs). Sensitivity analysis, and certainty of evidence were evaluated. Results Of 1684 articles, 32 studies satisfied the eligibility criteria, and nine were included for meta-analysis. Missing outcome data was the primary source of bias. Compared to blank controls, the short-term application of fluoride mouthwashes significantly reduced the colony counts of Mutans streptococci (MS), while the long-term application may not be effective. Compared to placebos or blank controls, Chlorhexidine mouthwashes significantly reduced the colony counts of multiple microorganisms in the short-term. Compared to placebos or blank controls, herbal mouthwashes showed the inhibitory effect of MS in the short-term, with some results lacking statistical significance. After meta-analysis, significant lower plaque- and gingival inflammation-related indexes were observed in the Chlorhexidine mouthwashes groups [Gingival Index: WMD = -0.45, 95%CI = -0.70 to -0.20 (placebos as control); WMD = -0.54, 95%CI = -0.96 to -0.13 (blank controls); Plaque Index: WMD = -0.70, 95%CI = -1.12 to -0.27 (blank controls)]. Significant lower gingival inflammation-related indexes were observed in the herbal mouthwashes groups [Gingival Index: WMD = -0.20, 95%CI = -0.32 to -0.09 (blank controls)]. Conclusions The short-term application of fluoride mouthwashes may reduce the colony counts of cariogenic bacteria, but the long-term effect is not evident. Chlorhexidine may reduce the colony counts of multiple microorganisms in the short-term. Short-term application Chlorhexidine and herbal mouthwashes may effectively reduce plaque- and gingival inflammation-related indexes. However, the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision in the included studies may reduce the certainty of the evidence.

Mouthwashes are used as oral care for critical care patients to prevent infections. However, there are conflicting data concerning whether mouthwashes are needed as a part of daily oral care for critical care patients. This study aimed to evaluate the anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial effects of mouthwashes for critical care patients. The PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature databases were searched by descriptors combining population (intensive care unit patients) and intervention (mouthwashes). After the screening, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the anti-inflammatory and anti-bacterial effects of mouthwashes in patient critical care were included. From the 1531 articles, 16 RCTs satisfied the eligibility criteria for systematic review and 10 were included in the meta-analyses. A significant difference was found in the incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) (odds ratio [OR] 0.53, 95% confidential interval [95% CI] 0.33 to 0.86) between the mouthwash and placebo groups, while no significant difference was found in the mortality (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.92 to 2.40); the duration of mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference [WMD] −0.10, 95%CI −2.01 to 1.81); and the colonization of Staphylococcus aureus (OR 0.88, 95%CI 0.34 to 2.30), Escherichia coli (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.50 to 2.82), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (OR 1.16, 95%CI 0.27 to 4.91) between the two groups. In conclusion, mouthwashes were effective in decreasing the incidence of VAP. Thus, mouthwashes can be used as part of daily oral care for critical care patients.