A Systematic Review of the Effect of Oral Rinsing with H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> on Clinical and Microbiological Parameters Related to Plaque, Gingivitis, and Microbes

Muniz, Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes; Cavagni, Juliano; Langa, Gerson Pedro José; Stewart, Bernal; Malheiros, Zilson; Rösing, Cassiano Kuchenbecker

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8841722

International Journal of Dentistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 | Article ID 8841722 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8841722

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Oral Rinsing with H₂O₂ on Clinical and Microbiological Parameters Related to Plaque, Gingivitis, and Microbes

Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz,¹Juliano Cavagni,²Gerson Pedro José Langa,²Bernal Stewart,³Zilson Malheiros,³and Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing²

Academic Editor: Alessandro Leite Cavalcanti

Received26 May 2020

Revised09 Oct 2020

Accepted18 Oct 2020

Published31 Oct 2020

Abstract

Background. Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) has been used for more than a century clinically to control plaque and gingival inflammation, with unclear supporting evidence. Aim. The aim of the present systematic review of the literature is to assess the effect of mouth rinses with H₂O₂ on dental plaque, gingival inflammation, and oral microorganisms. Methods. Five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched with the following focused question: what is the effect of hydrogen peroxide, in comparison to chlorhexidine or to a placebo solution, in oral microbiota control, dental plaque, and gingival inflammatory outcomes? Two independent examiners retrieved the articles and evaluated the evidence. Results. The majority of included studies were performed with 1.5% H₂O₂. Results related to plaque accumulation generally demonstrate a slightly better effect of H₂O₂ as compared to placebo mouth rinses, however with a lower performance as compared to chlorhexidine. In terms of gingival inflammation, H₂O₂ performs better than placebo and more clearly demonstrates an anti-inflammation effect. No studies evaluated the effect of H₂O₂ against viruses or fungi. In terms of bacteria, H₂O₂ demonstrates an antibacterial effect. Conclusion. Rinsing with H₂O₂ has the potential to affect plaque, gingivitis, and oral bacteria, as compared to placebo. However, the antibacterial results are not comparable to the performance of chlorhexidine.

1. Introduction

Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) mouthwashes have been used for a long time [1]. They have been utilized in an attempt to complement mechanical plaque control methods as well as to prevent/control oral infections [2]. However, the evidence supporting its use is not unequivocal even though it is still used by a number of professionals.

In 2011, Hossainian et al. [3] published a systematic review to evaluate the effect of H₂O₂ mouthwashes on the prevention of plaque and gingival inflammation. The focused question of such review was as follows: “what are the effects of oxygenating mouthwashes on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation parameters in adults, when compared with positive or negative controls mouthwashes or no oral hygiene, when used as a monotherapy or as an adjunct in daily oral hygiene?” Surprisingly, the number of included studies was relatively low (n = 12, in which only 5 were specifically formulated with H₂O₂). The other 7 studies were related to other oxygenating agents. The results of the review demonstrated that mouthwashes containing H₂O₂ do not consistently prevent plaque accumulation when used as a short-term monotherapy.

Recently, the effect of H₂O₂ on viruses has become a renewed interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic. H₂O₂ mouth rinses are being recommended as a preprocedural rinse, as well as a regular rinsing solution with the aim of diminishing contamination possibilities by the new coronavirus. A number of associations, including the American Dental Association, are recommending the use of H₂O₂ mouth rinses as prerinses prior to procedures [4–6]. However, the evidence for the use of H₂O₂ for oral antiviral purposes is virtually nonexistent. Most of the evidence only demonstrates the potential of H₂O₂ to disinfect surfaces [7].

New studies have been conducted and published after the systematic review of Hossainian et al. [3]. Hence, the existing review [3] could be broadened to consider these additional studies, especially in this particular moment. Therefore, the aim of this study is to systematically review the literature, assessing the effects of H₂O₂ mouth rinses in controlling dental plaque, gingival inflammation, and oral microbiota.

2. Materials and Methods

The focused question of the present study was as follows: “what is the effect of hydrogen peroxide, in comparison to chlorhexidine or to a placebo solution, in oral microbiota control, dental plaque, and gingival inflammatory outcomes?”

In order to be included, the study must fulfill all of the following inclusion criteria:(i)Clinical trials with humans of any age.(ii)Test group: individuals that used, at least one time per day, hydrogen peroxide mouthwash. Any concentration of hydrogen peroxide was accepted.(iii)Control group: individuals that used, at least one time per day, a placebo or chlorhexidine mouthwash. Any concentration of chlorhexidine was accepted.(iv)Outcomes: any oral microbiological, plaque index, or gingival index analysis.

No restriction to language or date of publication was imposed. Studies that used both chlorhexidine and hydrogen peroxide in the same group were excluded. Studies that involved outcomes assessed in dental implants were also excluded.

A search strategy was performed, up to April 23, 2020, in five databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search strategy performed in PubMed database is expressed as follows: Terms for hydrogen peroxide: Hydrogen Peroxide [MeSH terms] OR Hydrogen Peroxide [text word] OR Peroxides [text word] OR H₂O₂ [text word] OR Hydroperoxide [text word] OR Superoxol [text word] OR Oxydol [text word] OR Perhydrol [text word] OR oxidizing agent [text word] OR Bocasan [text word] OR Amosan [text word] OR Peroxyl [text word] OR Ascoxal [text word] OR peroxyborate [title/abstract] Terms for mouthwashes: Mouthwashes [MeSH terms] OR mouthwashes [text word] OR mouthrinses [text word] OR mouthwash [text word] OR mouthrinse [text word] OR rinse [text word] OR Mouthwashes [pharmacological action] OR mouth rinse [text word] OR mouth rinses [text word] OR Mouth Bath [text word] OR Mouth Baths [text word] OR Mouth Wash [text word] OR Mouth Washes [text word] OR Oral Sprays [MeSH terms] OR Oral Sprays [text word] OR spray [text word] Terms to assess all outcomes: microbiology [MeSH terms] OR microbiology [text word] OR Bacteria [MeSH terms] OR Bacteria [text word] OR Streptococcus mutans [text word] OR Porphyromonas gingivalis [text word] OR Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans [text word] OR Tannerella forsythia [text word] OR Fusobacterium nucleatum [text word] OR Treponema denticola [text word] OR streptococcus sobrinus [text word] OR Streptococcus sanguis [text word] OR bacterial strain [text word] OR fungi [text word] OR fungi [MeSH terms] OR fungus [text word] OR Mold [text word] OR Candida [text word] OR Oral pathogens [text word] OR oral microorganisms [text word] OR antimicrobial [text word] OR antibacterial [text word] OR minimal inhibitory concentration [text word] OR MIC [text word] OR ATCC [text word] OR Type Culture Collection [text word] OR Saliva [MeSH terms] OR saliva [text word] OR dental caries [MeSH terms] OR Dental Caries [text word] OR dental plaque [MeSH terms] OR Dental plaque [text word] OR plaque [text word] OR biofilms [MeSH terms] OR biofilm [text word] OR dental deposit [text word] OR antiplaque [text word] OR Dental Plaque Index [MeSH terms] OR dental plaque index [text word] OR Oral Hygiene [MeSH terms] OR Oral hygiene [text word] OR Quigley-Hein Index [text word] OR Silness Loe index [text word] OR Oral Hygiene Index [MeSH terms] OR Oral hygiene index [text word] OR antigingivitis [text word] OR Gingivitis [MeSH terms] OR gingivitis [text word] OR gingival inflammation [text word] OR Bleed∗ [text word] OR gingival index [text word] OR gingival bleeding [text word] OR bleeding on probing [text word] OR papillary bleeding [text word] OR Periodontal Index [MeSH terms] OR Periodontal index [text word] OR periodontal diseases [MeSH terms] OR periodontal diseases [text word] OR periodontitis [text word] Terms for hydrogen peroxide AND terms for mouthwashes AND terms to assess all outcomes

An adaptation of the abovementioned search strategy was performed in the other databases. Two researchers independently selected the studies and extracted the data in a spreadsheet specifically developed for this study (CKR and FWMGM). Regarding study selection, both screening (title and abstract analyses) and eligibility (full-text analysis) phases were performed independently. All discrepancies were solved between the researchers by discussion.

In addition, hand search was performed in the list of references of the included studies and in previously published literature reviews [3]. Studies from the last 30 years were hand searched in the following journals: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Periodontal Research, and Journal of Dental Research. Searches for grey literature were also performed in the Clinical Trials (clinicaltrials.gov) and Google Scholar databases, using an adaptation of the abovementioned search strategy. All the corresponding authors of the included studies were contacted by e-mail in order to detect other potentially relevant clinical trials. In addition, manufactures were contacted to supply information about other published, unpublished, or ongoing research studies using H₂O₂.

The risk of bias of all randomized clinical trials was assessed by the RoB2 tool, as recommended by Cochrane [8]. Randomization process, deviations from the intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, selection of the reported results, and overall risk of bias were assessed by two reviewers (FWMGM and CKR). In case of disagreements, a consensus was made between reviewers. A positive sign was given for an item when sufficient information was available, indicating low risk of bias, and a negative mark was used, for high risk of bias, when information was lacking. When risk of bias could not be assessed, the item was classified as unclear. For the nonrandomized trials, the ROBINS-I tool was used [9]. Several sources of bias were assessed, such as confounding, selection of participants, classification of interventions, deviations from intended interventions, missing data, measurement of outcomes, selection of the reported result, and overall bias.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Main Characteristics of the Included Studies

The search strategy and flowchart of articles retrieval is demonstrated in Figure 1. The reasons for exclusion of the identified studies are reported in Table S1. It should be noted that five databases were searched. The additional search strategies did not add any study to the present review, except for one additional study identified in the Google Scholar database [10]. The retrieved studies were very distinct in all aspects, preventing the possibility of a meta-analysis. Therefore, descriptive information will be given, according to design and outcome (experimental gingivitis or not; plaque, gingival inflammation, or microbiological parameters).

3.1.1. Risk of Bias

Figure 2 demonstrates the analysis of risk bias of the randomized clinical trials included in this review according to the RoB2 instrument. It may be detected that only one study presented low risk of bias in all criteria analyzed [11]. Four other studies presented an overall high risk of bias [10, 12–14]. The criteria randomization process showed unclear risk of bias in almost all included studies. The other sources of bias comprised mainly lack of information of reproducibility.

The risk of bias for the nonrandomized trials included in the present review is demonstrated in Table 1. Bias due to confounding was critical in all studies. The other analyses mostly demonstrate moderate to low risk of bias.

3.1.2. Plaque Index

(1) Nonexperimental Gingivitis Studies. The plaque index measurements are demonstrated in Table 2. It should be highlighted that 10 studies evaluated plaque parameters, of which six were performed as clinical trials allowing mechanical plaque control [11, 12, 15, 19–21]. In one, it was not possible to determine if mechanical plaque control was possible [10]. All studies that used H₂O₂ as adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene were performed with the concentration of 1.5%_. Those studies demonstrate a higher antiplaque efficacy of chlorhexidine in comparison to H₂O₂, except two, in which H₂O₂ presented similar efficacy to chlorhexidine [10, 21]. Generally, very little differences from negative controls were detected.

(2) Experimental Gingivitis Studies. Among the studies that evaluated plaque parameters, 3 used the experimental gingivitis model [16, 18, 22]. The information coming from these studies gives an idea of efficacy of the mouth rinses in undisturbed dental biofilms. This enhances the proofs of principle of the antiplaque effect, which would give useful information, e.g., for areas where mechanical plaque control is not effective.

3.1.3. Gingival Inflammation

(1) Nonexperimental Gingivitis Studies. The results related to gingival inflammatory parameters are presented in Table 3. Nine studies were included in this outcome [10–12, 15, 16, 18–21], six allowed mechanical plaque control [11, 12, 15, 19–21]. In one study, it was not clear if mechanical plaque control was allowed [10]. In these parameters, H₂O₂ mouth rinse performs better than negative controls, however less than chlorhexidine. A possibility of a decrease in inflammation could be raised since it seems that H₂O₂ performs better in terms of gingivitis than it does in relation to plaque.

(2) Experimental Gingivitis Studies. Among the studies that evaluated gingival inflammation, two were based on the experimental gingivitis model [16, 18]. The experimental gingivitis model provides information on the effect of the mouth rinse in areas in which plaque control is not adequate. Also, it rules out the eventual confounding effect of the adjunct plaque control in the study of chemical substances.

3.1.4. Microbiological Outcomes

(1) Nonexperimental Gingivitis Studies. The results related to microbiological parameters are demonstrated in Table 4. Six studies were included with these outcomes [11, 13, 14, 16–18]. Four studies allowed mechanical control of biofilm [11, 13, 14, 17]. Better results with mouth rinses containing H₂O₂ when compared to a placebo were detected.

(2) Experimental Gingivitis Studies. Two studies performed microbiological analysis using an experimental gingivitis design [16, 18]. The information coming from such studies supports the quality/quantity of different germs when plaque is accumulating overtime. It also rules out the effect of the uncontrolled mechanical plaque removal.

3.1.5. Qualitative Results—Safety

Among the 13 included studies, only five of them assessed for side effects. All of these five studies reported no side effects in individuals that used H₂O₂ mouthwashes [11, 14–16, 19]. Additionally, no side effects were reported in those that used chlorhexidine [14, 16]. Conversely, an increased tendency for desquamation of the mucosal lining was reported in individuals that used a placebo solution [16]. The other studies that used a negative control group reported no side effect in this group [11, 14, 15, 19].

3.2. Strengths and Limitations of SR

The present systematic review aimed to assess the eventual effects of mouth rinses with H₂O₂ on plaque, gingivitis, and different germs in the oral cavity. For that, five databases were searched, and 13 articles were methodologically appraised. In general, H₂O₂ mouth rinses demonstrated an effect on the three parameters under the study in different degrees.

Regarding the risk of bias of both randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, it is important to highlight that most of the included studies presented an unclear or high risk of bias. Only one study demonstrated an overall low risk of bias [11]. This randomized clinical trial demonstrated a superior antigingivitis efficacy of H₂O₂ mouthwash in comparison to a placebo solution. However, no significant difference was observed for the antiplaque efficacy. The overall high risk of bias must be put into perspective when interpreting the results of the present study. This means that the use in clinical practice should be indicated with caution and not performed routinely since the support is not robust.

The strengths of the present systematic review were based on the importance of the topic, especially because the mouth is a very contaminated cavity and mouth rinses are used to reduce different degrees of contamination. In addition, with the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of mouth rinses has been considered an additional way for reducing all sorts of contamination. The limitations are related to the quality of the evidence. Therefore, the information contained herein should be cautiously interpreted. Also, in an attempt to decrease the time for publication of this information, no registration was performed and it was not possible to make a post hoc registration.

3.3. Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendation

Initially, the focused question included both a negative and a positive control group. The negative control could be either placebo, water, or no solution, whereas the control group should include the gold standard in terms of oral rinse—chlorhexidine. The results of this systematic review should be put into the perspective that H₂O₂ is widely used in oral care despite the lack of a large number of studies, especially in some of the aforementioned indications. We looked at the systematic review published by Hossainian et al. [3] that critically appraised the evidence until the beginning of this decade. Such work led to the conclusion that H₂O₂ does not consistently prevent plaque accumulation in short-term periods. Therefore, we expanded the search criteria, not restricting age, including microbiological parameters, updating the publication year to 2020, and including five databases instead of the two previously searched databases. Due to the higher usage of H₂O₂, we restricted the search to only include this substance and not any other oxygenating agent.

H₂O₂ has been used clinically for more than a century, and recently, H₂O₂ containing mouth rinse are being recommended, especially due to a possible antiviral effect and the pandemic of COVID-19. To the best of the authors’ knowledge and making a systematic search in the same databases, no studies have observed any antiviral effect of H₂O₂ in the mouth. However, associations are supporting its use [5, 6]. The present systematic review used the most strict quality criteria for retrieving the studies. However, the interpretation will be contextualized in the moment that the world is facing a pandemic in which any kind of effort should be at least collated to make the sense of any preventive guideline.

In terms of plaque, one study [15] was performed in adolescents and the others in adults. One of them also included handicapped individuals [20]. Four of the six studies that allowed oral hygiene compared 1.5% H₂O₂ with a negative control [11, 15, 19, 20] and 2 of them with chlorhexidine [12, 21], and one of them was also compared to a negative control [12]. Among the studies that used the experimental gingivitis model [16, 18, 22], two were compared with a negative control [18, 22] and the other included a positive control [16]. In one study, the effect of H₂O₂ was compared to chlorhexidine, but it was not possible to determine if mechanical plaque control was allowed [10]. In these studies, different concentrations of H₂O₂ were used.

It is clear from the encountered results that 1.5% H₂O₂ is the most studied concentration in the formula of a mouth rinse. This result is in accordance with the previously published review [3]. For the publications evaluating the effect of H₂O₂ on plaque, only one study (which evaluated the antiplaque effect over an 18-month time period) demonstrated improved results when compared to a placebo [15]. The other studies, which evaluated the effect over shorter periods, did not find statistically significant differences. Also, in the studies that used the experimental gingivitis model, only one study demonstrated the superiority of H₂O₂ in comparison to placebo [18].

The same cited publications that evaluated plaque also evaluated the effect of H₂O₂ on gingival inflammation. Although only a single study demonstrated the antiplaque benefit of H₂O₂, more studies clearly point to a better antigingivitis effect of H₂O₂ mouth rinses as compared to placebo [11, 15, 20]. In fact, for one of the studies, no difference was observed between the H₂O₂ mouth rinse and the positive control [12]. Because the participants of these studies were allowed for routine mechanical oral hygiene, an effect on clinical inflammation alone (without having the associated plaque reduction benefit) should be highlighted. These results suggest that H₂O₂ might perform differently in terms of plaque and gingivitis, which is of great clinical interest.

Also, it is of high importance to evaluate the effect of mouth rinses on the oral microbiome. This includes not only bacteria but also other germs, such as viruses and fungi. However, despite completing a broad search of the literature, no studies were identified that evaluated the effect of H₂O₂ oral microorganisms other than bacteria. The comparisons of the effect of rinses on oral bacteria with H₂O₂ and with the positive control generally demonstrate a better effect of the latter. However, the differences in terms of the composition of the oral microbiome when H₂O₂ is compared to placebo are clear in a variety of bacterial species. The present study evaluated risk of bias both for the nonrandomized and randomized trials. As expected, the randomized clinical trials presented a higher quality, with decreased risk of bias. The nonrandomized studies in general present a higher risk of bias. This is inherent to the chosen design. Randomized studies tend to present a lower risk of bias.

A systematic review was recently published by Marui et al. [23] describing the effect of preprocedural rinses with different substances on dental office-generated aerosols. They demonstrated that rinses with chlorhexidine, essential oils, and cetylpyridinium chloride are effective. No studies with H₂O₂ were included.

3.4. Implications for Further Research

Meanwhile, taking into consideration the precautionary principle [24], even without the qualified evidence, due to the high levels of morbimortality, it is of interest to see other potentials of the use of H₂O₂. In such conditions, the use of “collateral evidence” is recommended, always with a surveillance look. Therefore, in the present moment, further studies including oral rinses with H₂O₂ and other substances are warranted. Studies with the antiviral effect of H₂O₂ are also needed.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, rinsing with 1.5% H₂O₂ has demonstrated an antigingivitis effect as compared to placebo, with also greater reductions in oral bacteria. Chlorhexidine has demonstrated, up to now, the best antiplaque and antigingivitis effect on the oral microbiome.

Data Availability

The data supporting the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest. Zilson Malheiros and Bernal Stewart are currently employed by Colgate-Palmolive Company.

Acknowledgments

This study was sponsored by the Latin American Oral Health Association. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil (CAPES) (Finance code 001).

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: list of potentially relevant studies not included in the systematic review, along with the reasons for exclusion. (Supplementary Materials)

References

S. I. Gold, “Early origins of hydrogen peroxide use in oral hygiene: a historical note,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 54, no. 4, p. 247, 1983.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. V. Marshall, L. P. Cancro, and S. L. Fischman, “Hydrogen peroxide: a review of its use in dentistry,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 786–796, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Hossainian, D. Slot, F. Afennich, and G. Van der Weijden, “The effects of hydrogen peroxide mouthwashes on the prevention of plaque and gingival inflammation: a systematic review,” International Journal of Dental Hygiene, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 171–181, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Peng, X. Xu, Y. Li, L. Cheng, X. Zhou, and B. Ren, “Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice,” International Journal of Oral Science, vol. 12, no. 1, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Brazil, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Nota Técnica GVIMS/GGTES/ANVISA No 04/2020, ANVISA, Brasília, Brazil, 2020.
American Dental Association, ADA Adds Frequently Asked Questions from Dentists to Coronavirus Resources, American Dental Association, Chicago, IL, USA, 2020.
G. Kampf, D. Todt, S. Pfaender, and E. Steinmann, “Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents,” Journal of Hospital Infection, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 246–251, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. C. Sterne, J. Savović, M. J. Page et al., “RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials,” BMJ, vol. 366, p. l4898, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Sterne, M. A. Hernán, B. C. Reeves et al., “ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions,” BMJ, vol. 355, p. i4919, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Porwal, A. Mathur, N. Shetty, B. Manohar, B. Makhijani, and R. Mundra, “Comparative evaluation of the effect of chlorhexidine gluconate, raw propolis and hydrogen peroxide on dental plaque and gingival inflammation,” Journal of Nepalese Society of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 14–19, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hasturk, M. Nunn, M. Warbington, and T. E. V. Dyke, “Efficacy of a fluoridated hydrogen peroxide-based mouthrinse for the treatment of gingivitis: a randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 57–65, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Rashed, “Evaluation of the effect of hydrogen peroxide as a mouthwash in comparison with chlorhexidine in chronic periodontitis patients: a clinical study,” Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 206–212, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Matula, M. Hildebrandt, and G. Nahler, “Decontamination of the oral cavity. Effect of six local anti-microbial preparations in comparison to water and parafilm as controls,” Journal of International Medical Research, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 98–106, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Menendez, F. Li, S. M. Michalek, K. Kirk, S. K. Makhija, and N. K. Childers, “Comparative analysis of the antibacterial effects of combined mouthrinses on Streptococcus mutans,” Oral Microbiology and Immunology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 31–34, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. L. Boyd, “Effects on gingivitis of daily rinsing with 1.5% H₂O₂,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 557–562, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. A. Gusberti, P. Sampathkumar, B. E. Siegrist, and N. P. Lang, “Microbiological and clinical effects of chlorhexidine digluconate and hydrogen peroxide mouthrinses on developing plaque and gingivitis,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 60–67, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F.-A. Pitten and A. Kramer, “Antimicrobial efficacy of antiseptic mouthrinse solutions,” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 95–100, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wennström and J. Lindhe, “Effect of hydrogen peroxide on developing plaque and gingivitis in man,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 115–130, 1979.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. B. Clark, I. Magnusson, C. B. Walker, and R. G. Marks, “Efficacy of PerimedR antibacterial system on established gingivitis (I). Clinical results,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 630–635, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Gomes, M. L. Shakun, and L. W. Ripa, “Effect of rinsing with a 1.5% hydrogen peroxide solution (Peroxyl) on gingivitis and plaque in handicapped and nonhandicapped subjects,” Clinical Preventive Dentistry, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 21–25, 1984.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Sharma, S. Acharya, E. Verma, D. Singhal, and N. Singla, “Efficacy of chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide and tulsi extract mouthwash in reducing halitosis using spectrophotometric analysis: a randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. e457–e463, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Hoenderdos, N. Rosema, D. Slot, M. Timmerman, U. van der Velden, and G. van der Weijden, “The influence of a hydrogen peroxide and glycerol containing mouthrinse on plaque accumulation: a 3-day non-brushing model,” International Journal of Dental Hygiene, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 294–298, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. C. Marui, M. L. S. Souto, E. S. Rovai, G. A. Romito, L. Chambrone, and C. M. Pannuti, “Efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of microorganisms in aerosol,” The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol. 150, no. 12, pp. 1015–1026, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Fischer and G. Ghelardi, “The precautionary principle, evidence-based medicine, and decision theory in public health evaluation,” Frontiers in Public Health, vol. 4, p. 107, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2020 Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

3290

Downloads

1239

Citations