Efficacy of Probiotics Compared to Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Improving Periodontal Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Henrique Soares, Kaio; Firoozi, Parsa; Maria de Souza, Glaciele; Beatriz Lopes Martins, Olga; Gabriel Moreira Falci, Saulo; Rocha dos Santos, Cassio Roberto

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4013004

International Journal of Dentistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 4013004 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/4013004

Efficacy of Probiotics Compared to Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Improving Periodontal Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Kaio Henrique Soares,¹Parsa Firoozi,²Glaciele Maria de Souza,¹Olga Beatriz Lopes Martins,¹Saulo Gabriel Moreira Falci,¹and Cassio Roberto Rocha dos Santos¹

Academic Editor: Halim Issever

Received19 Aug 2022

Revised26 Nov 2022

Accepted04 Jan 2023

Published23 Jan 2023

Abstract

Purpose. To critically evaluate the available literature and conduct a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of probiotics compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash in enhancing periodontal health. Methods. Five databases were searched electronically, as well as the gray literature. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, the risk of bias was examined. The weighted mean difference (WMD) method was used to calculate the effect sizes. Heterogeneity was assessed using I² and τ² statistics. The GRADE approach was adopted to assess the certainty of the evidence. To assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were undertaken. Results. A total of 1850 studies were initially identified. Sixteen clinical trials were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and ten were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of the gingival index, in total, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics within 4 weeks (WMD −0.03, 95% CI: −0.09∼0.04, = 0.3885). Similar to GI, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics regarding the plaque index within 4 weeks (WMD 0.11, 95% CI: −0.05∼0.28, = 0.1726). No statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics in all time intervals regarding oral hygiene index-simplified (WMD −0.01, 95% CI: −0.05∼0.04, = 0.7508). The robustness of these findings was confirmed by sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessments. Conclusions. Based on the findings, probiotics were an acceptable alternative to conventional chlorhexidine in improving periodontal health. High-quality studies with rigorous methodology should be conducted to assess the optimum doses of probiotics for clinical implications.

1. Introduction

One of the most prevalent oral diseases in the world is periodontal disease [1]. Dental plaque has been proved to be the main factor in the onset and progression of periodontal diseases. Thus, the prevention and treatment of periodontal diseases are based on plaque control and antimicrobial therapies [2].

Adjuvant chemical approaches, such as mouthwash, have been proposed as an additional therapy due to the limitations of mechanical plaque management techniques and the rise in antibiotic resistance. [3].

Antimicrobial agents such as hydrogen peroxide, chlorhexidine (CHX), essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and triclosan are commonly used for this purpose. Based on the present findings, the gold standard for plaque control is chlorhexidine, a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent [2]. However, continuous use of chlorhexidine has side effects such as an increase in calculus formation, alteration in taste, and oral mucosal erosion [4].

Probiotic usage has been suggested as an alternative to manage periodontal diseases in recent years. In this way, probiotics may be a turning point in periodontal treatment [5]. They were defined as “living microorganisms that, given in sufficient quantities, bring health benefits to the host” [5]. Probiotics have been shown to reduce the acidic pH inside the oral cavity and release bacteriocins that prevent plaque formation [6].

Moreover, previous studies have shown that the use of probiotic products can reduce oral caries. In these studies, reducing the level of some bacteria effective in causing caries, including Streptococcus mutans, has been shown [7]. Probiotics have also been reported to be associated with decreased Candida colonies in saliva and the prevalence of oral candidiasis. By inhibiting the growth of microorganisms, probiotics can change the host’s microbiome [8].

The role of probiotics in periodontal disease and a significant decrease in plaque indices, bleeding on probing, and gingivitis have been proposed [9]. However, only a small number of clinical trials have examined the antiplaque and anti-inflammatory effects of probiotics and chlorhexidine mouthwash. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the use of chlorhexidine mouthwash and oral probiotics to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics as a potential alternative agent for the improvement of periodontal status and critically appraise the available literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This review was organized based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [10]. Also, it was registered at PROSPERO with the protocol registration code: CRD42021261054.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The main objective of this meta-analysis was to respond to the following question: Do probiotics have the same periodontal health-improving power as CHX mouthwash?

The PICO components were the following items: population (any patients with no restrictions regarding their age), intervention (probiotics in any form or type), comparator (conventional chlorhexidine mouthwash), outcome (clinical parameters such as the plaque index, the gingival index, the probing pocket depth, the clinical attachment level, the sulcular bleeding index, gingival recession, and the periodontal inflamed surface area index), and study design (randomized controlled trials). No language restriction was applied to decrease the risk of language bias. Studies were excluded if they were nonpeer-reviewed RCTs and conference papers, editorial, and review papers.

2.3. Information Sources and Search

The electronic search for articles took place in December 2021. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Oral Health, and Group Trial Register. The gray literature was also searched through Google Scholar. The MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) database was utilized to verify all keywords (Supplementary Table 1). Free relevant keywords were searched additionally. Moreover, all primary research’ reference lists were thoroughly searched for further scientific papers.

2.4. Study Selection

Two reviewers (KHS and OBLM) rigorously and impartially evaluated the articles. Reading through all of the article titles and abstracts in the aforementioned databases served as the first step in the selection process. Articles that did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria were excluded after reading the titles and abstracts. The full texts of the papers that were retrieved after the first step were gathered, and full-text publications were evaluated by the authors following inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies concerning eligibility and any disputes between the two reviewers were settled by discussion.

2.5. Data Extraction

The data were extracted by one author, and a second reviewer subsequently double-checked the data. All the data obtained by the articles were tabulated as follows: study design, sample size, age of participants, experimental groups, comparator groups, clinical parameters, and follow-ups. In addition, if studies had insufficient data for the meta-analysis, the authors were contacted to provide them.

2.6. Risk of Bias

Two reviewers (GMS and KHS) independently evaluated the risk of bias in this review using the Cochrane Collaboration’s assessment tool (version 2) [11]. The randomization procedure, variations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, assessment of the outcome, and selection of the reported result are the five primary domains of this tool.

2.7. Data Analysis

The meta-analysis was conducted on the gingival index, plaque index, and oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S). The “meta” package and the R software, version 3.6.2, were used for all of the analysis. If the data were numerically similar, the weighted mean difference (WMD) utilizing the inverse variance approach was examined for continuous variables. Apart from that, the standard mean difference (SMD) was used. The fixed-effect model was used when I² = 0, and the random-effect model was used when I² > 0. All the values were two-sided, and the statistical significance was defined at a level of α = 0.05. The same methodology used in three previously published meta-analyses was adopted [12–14]. The leave-one-out method, which recalculates the meta-analysisN − 1 time while omitting one study each time, was used for sensitivity analysis. Outliers can be discovered in this method. Re-analysis was performed after the outlier studies’ removal to test the robustness of the results. Egger’s test [15] and Duval and Tweedie’s trim-and-fill method [16] were used to quantitatively assess the publication bias, and contour-enhanced funnel plots were built to visualize it.

2.8. Certainty Assessment

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) ranking through five analysis criteria was used to evaluate the level of the evidence (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirect evidence, imprecision, and publication bias). As a result, the degree of certainty in the evidence was rated as high, moderate, low, or extremely low [17].

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

1800 publications were found following a thorough search and the removal of duplicate studies. 26 studies were retained and evaluated for full-text evaluation after titles and abstracts were filtered according to the eligibility criteria. Hence, ten studies were excluded, and finally, sixteen RCTs [18–30] were assessed for qualitative synthesis and ten for meta-analysis [18, 21, 22, 25–29] (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

3.2.1. Review of the Included Studies

The main characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. The papers compared the use of probiotics (experimental group) in any form with chlorhexidine mouthwash (comparator). Six studies had other experimental groups [18, 19, 21, 26]. Eleven studies had control groups using saline, mint water, distilled water, or regular oral hygiene measures [20, 22, 23, 25–30, 33]. The studies were conducted between 2010 and 2021.829 patients were evaluated. The number of participants ranged from 15 to 90, divided into experimental and comparator groups, with a mean of 51.8 participants. The included studies assessed whether daily oral administration of probiotics could influence the inflammatory response and plaque accumulation. Thirteen studies evaluated PI and GI [18–25, 27, 30, 33]. Three papers evaluated only PI [26, 28, 30]. Five papers also evaluated OHI-S [18, 22, 23, 30].

3.2.2. Risk of Bias within Studies

The risk of bias within the included studies is presented in Figure 2. The majority of the included RCTs showed a moderate risk of bias and quality due to deviations from intended interventions [18–25, 27–30, 33]. On the other hand, two showed a low risk of bias [26, 33].

3.2.3. Publication Bias Assessment

The results of the publication bias assessment are presented in Table 2 and Figure 3. Based on the quantitative tests, publication bias was not proved for all outcomes. However, according to the asymmetric pattern of funnel plots, publication bias was suspected to some extent.

(a)

(b)

(c)

4. Results of Meta-Analysis

4.1. Gingival Index

In terms of the gingival index, no statistically significant difference was observed between CHX and probiotics in all time intervals (WMD −0.03, 95% CI: −0.09∼0.04, = 0.3885) with a very low level of evidence (Figure 4 and Supplementary Table 2). After removing outlier studies, similar to the previous analysis, no significant difference was observed in all time points (WMD −0.05, 95% CI: −0.11∼0.01, = 0.0971) with a very low level of evidence (Supplementary Figures 1 and 2 and Supplementary Table 2).

4.1.1. Plaque Index

Similar to GI, no statistically significant difference was observed between CHX and probiotics regarding PI (WMD 0.11, 95% CI: −0.05∼0.28, = 0.1726) with a very low level of evidence (Figure 5 and Supplementary Table 2). On the contrary, a statistically significant difference was shown in the fourth week after using mouthwashes (WMD 0.16, 95% CI: −0.05∼0.28), which favored chlorhexidine, with a moderate level of evidence (Figure 5 and Supplementary Table 2). Moreover, after removing outliers, using sensitivity analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed between CHX and probiotics regarding PI (WMD 0.01, 95% CI: −0.03∼0.05, = 0.5272) with a very low level of evidence (Supplementary Figures 3 and 4 and Supplementary Table 2).

4.1.2. Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S)

No statistically significant difference was observed between CHX and probiotics in all time intervals regarding OHI-S after performing sensitivity analysis (WMD −0.01, 95% CI: −0.05∼0.04, = 0.7508) with a moderate level of evidence (Figure 6 and Supplementary Table 2).

5. Discussion

Concerning chlorhexidine’s long-term side effects, researchers have been looking for an alternative agent to improve the periodontal status and manage periodontal diseases. Thus, probiotics have been the subject of many clinical trials to prove their efficacy in reducing plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation [8].

The current systematic review investigated randomized clinical trials to assess the effectiveness of probiotics as an alternative to chlorhexidine for the management of periodontal status. All the included papers used periodontal clinical parameters (plaque index and/or gingival index) to evaluate interventions in follow-ups with different mouthwashes and probiotic lozenges [18–30, 33] [29–30, 33].

Ten studies included in the meta-analysis used the Silness–Loe plaque index (1964) [18, 21, 22, 25–30], nine papers used the Loe–Silness gingival index (1963) [18, 21, 22, 25–28, 30], and five clinical trials used oral hygiene index-simplified (Green and Vermillion) [18, 22, 23, 30]. The data were numerically similar and were measured using the same techniques; hence, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to pool effect sizes.

After pooling effect sizes, no statistically significant difference was observed between probiotics and chlorhexidine mouthwash within 4 weeks of follow-up. There was no significant statistical difference found in the gingival index. This finding demonstrates that probiotics have been shown to improve inflammatory response. It is well known that probiotics contain beneficial commensals, which operate as a natural barrier against bacteria [5–7, 34]. Probiotics lessen bacterial adhesion to tooth surfaces, which may prevent microbial growth and proliferation as well as the development of the intercellular plaque matrix. It demonstrates the value of utilizing probiotics by altering the biochemistry of plaque, preventing the production of cytotoxic products that alter the ecology of plaque, and preventing toxicities and antibiotic resistance [5–7, 34].

However, these findings were based on very low to moderate certainty of the evidence. The analyses showed very low levels of certain evidence for the gingival index and plaque index outcomes due to a large amount of heterogeneity and the lack of precision. Rücker et al. have proposed three sources of heterogeneity in meta-analyses including clinical heterogeneity (such as differences between sample characteristics), statistical heterogeneity, and other sources of heterogeneity (such as design-related heterogeneity) [35]. Studies that used various probiotic formulations and concentrations of chlorhexidine may have contributed to the observed heterogeneity. On the other hand, blindness varied among the included studies.

Age, weight, and adherence to oral hygiene advice are a few variables that may have an impact on periodontal health. Moreover, previous research has shown that obesity serves as a potentiator of the periodontal condition because of the elevation of inflammatory cytokines [36]. These characteristics might have a variety of effects on a heterogeneous sample, making it more challenging for the systematic review’s external validity.

Also, the presence of publication bias was suspected based on the asymmetrical pattern of the funnel plots for outcomes. However, publication bias was not proved using statistical tests. It is crucial, however, not to jump to conclusions and interpret the funnel plot cautiously. In fact, publication bias is just one of many possible reasons for funnel plot asymmetry. Small studies with extremely large effect sizes, between-study heterogeneity, and different study designs can lead to funnel plot asymmetry [37]. It is a common finding that low-quality studies tend to show larger effect sizes because there is a higher risk of bias. Large studies require more investment, so, likely, their methodology will also be more rigorous [37].

As a result, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. To standardize comparisons, we advise that future randomized clinical studies be conducted using the same probiotic composition and chlorhexidine concentration.

We advise conducting more longitudinal studies and microbiological testing before prescribing probiotics as an antiseptic and antibacterial agent. Due to the inclusion of low to moderate-quality primary papers, this review was constrained. Furthermore, the probiotic and chlorhexidine comparison in these clinical trials lacked standardization. They employed several types of probiotics, chlorhexidine formulations, and concentrations. The aforementioned issues should be considered in future studies.

6. Conclusion

Probiotics are an alternate option for enhancing periodontal health. It might also serve as a substitute for chlorhexidine mouthwash to avoid any potential negative effects. To determine the ideal doses for clinical implications, additional high-quality research with strict methods should be conducted.

Data Availability

Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Kaio Henrique Soares and Parsa Firoozi contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the Brazilian Coordination of Higher Education, Ministry of Education (CAPES), Finance Code 001.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure 1. Detecting outlier studies for the gingival index. Supplementary Figure 2.Meta-analysis after removing outlier studies for the gingival index. Supplementary Figure 3. Detecting outlier studies for the plaque index. Supplementary Figure 4.Meta-analysis after removing outlier studies for the plaque index. Supplementary Table 1. Databases and search strategy. Supplementary Table 2. GRADE certainty of the evidence. (Supplementary Materials)

References

M. A. Peres, L. M. Macpherson, B. Weyant, R. Daly, M. R. Venturelli, and S. Mathur, “Oral diseases: a global public health challenge,” Lancet (London, England), vol. 394, no. 10194, pp. 249–260, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Kinane, P. G. Stathopoulou, and P. N. Papapanou, “Periodontal diseases,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers, vol. 3, Article ID 17038, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. E. Rams, J. D. Sautter, and A. J. van Winkelhoff, “Comparative in vitro resistance of human periodontal bacterial pathogens to tinidazole and four other antibiotics,” Antibiotics, vol. 9, no. 2, p. E68, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Kolliyavar, L. Shettar, and S. Thakur, “Chlorhexidine: the gold standard mouth wash,” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences, vol. 6, 2016, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Chlorhexidine%3A-The-Gold-Standard-Mouth-Wash-Kolliyavar-Shettar/19852841f265810616fd666b34ae1b74594e00a1.
View at: Google Scholar
V. T. George, M. M. Varghese, M. S. Vaseem, A. Thomas, P. George Ittycheria, and C. K. Sreejith, “The promising future of probiotics: a new era in periodontal therapy,” Journal of International Oral Health, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 404, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Chugh, R. Dutt, A. Sharma, N. Bhagat, and M. S. Dhar, “A critical appraisal of the effects of probiotics on oral health,” Journal of Functional Foods, vol. 70, Article ID 103985, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Nanavati, T. Prasanth, M. Kosala, S. K. Bhandari, and P. Banotra, “Effect of probiotics and prebiotics on oral health,” Dental Journal of Advance Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. C. Ribeiro, R. D. Rossoni, P. P. de Barros et al., “Action mechanisms of probiotics on Candida spp. and candidiasis prevention: an update,” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 129, no. 2, pp. 175–185, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Laleman and W. Teughels, “Probiotics in the dental practice: a review,” Quintessence International, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 255–264, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Moher, D. J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, and D. F. Stroup, “Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses,” Lancet (London, England), vol. 354, pp. 1896–1900, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. C. Sterne, A. J. Sutton, N. Terrin, D. R. Jones, J. Lau, and J. Carpenter, “Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials,” BMJ, vol. 343, no. 7818, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Firoozi, O. K. Seied, S.-G. Kim, and H. R. Fallahi, “Effectiveness of low-level laser therapy on recovery from neurosensory disturbance after sagittal split ramus osteotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 42, no. 1, p. 41, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Firoozi, M. Rocha Fonseca Souza, G. Maria de Souza, A. F. Ighor, E. L. Galvão, and S. Gabriel Moreira Falci, “Does kinesio taping reduce pain, swelling, and trismus after mandibular third molar surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 535–553, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Firoozi, N. Farshidfar, and R. Fekrazad, “Efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy compared to nystatin therapy in reducing Candida colony count in patients with Candida-associated denture stomatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Evidence-based Dentistry, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Egger, G. Davey Smith, M. Schneider, and C. Minder, “Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test,” BMJ, vol. 315, pp. 629–634, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Duval and R. Tweedie, “Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis,” Biometrics, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 455–463, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Piggott, R. L. Morgan, C. A. Cuello-Garcia et al., “Grading of Recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (short GRADE) working Group.The GRADE working group,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 120, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Deshmukh, A. Suresh Dodamani, G. Karibasappa, M. R. Khairnar, R. G. Naik, and H. Chaitram Jadhav, “Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of probiotic, herbal and chlorhexidine mouthwash on gingival health: a randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, vol. 11, no. 3, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. H. Manjunathappa, J. J. Jojo, M. Kenganora, and M. N. Kumar, “Effect of tulsi extract and probiotic mouthrinse on plaque and gingivitis among School children–A randomized controlled trial,” Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 82, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
P. M. Harini and R. T. Anegundi, “Efficacy of a probiotic and chlorhexidine mouth rinses: a short-term clinical study,” Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 179, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Kandaswamy, A. Sharath, and P. R. G. Priya, “Comparison of the effectiveness of probiotic, chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes, and oil pulling therapy on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation in 10- to 12-year-old schoolchildren: a randomized controlled trial,” International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 66–70, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. V. Nadkerny, P. L. Ravishankar, V. Pramod, L. A. Agarwal, and S. Bhandari, “A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of probiotic and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on clinical inflammatory parameters of gingivitis: a randomized controlled clinical study,” Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 633–639, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Duarte, A. Al-Yagoob, and A. Al-Ani, “Efficacy of probiotics used as a periodontal treatment aid: a pilot study,” The Saudi Dental Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 143–147, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Al-S. Thaer and B. D. S. Alaa Omran, “Comparing the effect of probiotic and chlorhexidine as a mouth rinses in bacterial plaque,” Scientific Journal College of Dentistry–University of Baghdad, vol. 93, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Bande, S. Ade, S. Baroopal et al., “Efficacy of darolac probiotic and chlorhexidine mouth rinse in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation in children: a clinical trial,” International Journal of Preventive and Clinical Dental Research, vol. 8, no. 3, p. 67, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Mishra, S. Tandon, M. Rathore, and M. Banerjee, “Antimicrobial and plaque inhibitory potential of herbal and probiotic oral rinses in children: a randomized clinical trial,” Indian Journal of Dental Research: Official Publication of Indian Society for Dental Research, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 485–492, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Sharma, G. Datta, K. Gandhi, and D. Kumar, “A comparative evaluation of efficacy of probiotic and chlorhexidine mouthrinses on gingival health and plaque accumulation in 6-9 Year old children,” International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 156–162, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Thakkar, M. Imranulla, P. Naveen Kumar, G. Prashant, B. Sakeenabi, and V. Sushanth, “Effect of probiotic mouthrinse on dental plaque accumulation: a randomized controlled trial,” Dentistry and Medical Research, vol. 1, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Badri, E. Sara, F. Hesham et al., “Effectiveness of probiotic lozenges and chlorhexidine mouthwash on plaque index, salivary PH, and Streptococcus mutans count among School children in makkah, Saudi arabia,” The Saudi Dental Journal, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 635–641, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Vivek, A. Kumar, and P. Mahender, “Comparison of the effectiveness of probiotic and chlorhexidine mouth rinses on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation,” International Journal Of Drug Research And Dental Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A, Singh, P. Viragi, B. Shivu, and A. Kaur, “Comparative assessment of efficiency of green tea, probiotic, and chlorhexidine mouth rinse on plaque and gingivitis,” Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science,” Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–12, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
R. K. Shah, “Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Probiotic, Chlorhexidine and Flouride Mouthrinses in Children : A Short-Term Clinical Study,” Journal of International Dental and Medical Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 21–26, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Purunaik, M. ThippeswamyH, and D. S. Chavan, “To evaluate the effect of probiotic mouth rinse on plaque and gingivitis among 15-16 Year old School children of mysore city, India-randomized controlled trial,” Global Journal of Medical Research, vol. 14, 2014, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/To-Evaluate-the-Effect-of-Probiotic-Mouth-Rinse-on-Purunaik-ThippeswamyH/16a93c702edcd2567de2478f87da3fc8aa7b53ca.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Noordin and S. Kamin, “The effect of probiotic mouthrinse on plaque and gingival inflammation,” Annals of Dentistry University of Malaya, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Rücker, S. Guido, J. R. Carpenter, and M. Schumacher, “Undue reliance on I2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead,” BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 79, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Keller, J. F. Rohde, K. Raymond, and B. L. Heitmann, “Association between periodontal disease and overweight and obesity: a systematic review,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 766–776, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Harrer, P. Cuijpers, A. Furukawa Toshi, and D. D. Ebert, Doing Meta-Analysis with R: A Hands-On Guide, Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, 1st edition, 2021.

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Kaio Henrique Soares 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

1287

Downloads

685

Citations