SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride and essential oil mouthwashes in reducing plaque and gingivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Expert consensus on the use of oral antiseptics in oral surgery: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Guideline
- Research Trends in Antimicrobial Oral Hygiene Products, the Oral Microbiome, and Dental Biofilm: A Bibliometric Analysis (2006-2025).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Therapeutic Potential of Cannabidiol in Dysbiosis-Related Oral Biofilm Diseases: Antibiofilm, Antivirulence and Host Response Evidence.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activity of TheraBreath™ Oral Rinses: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite being the gold standard for chemical plaque treatment, chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) mouthwash has adverse effects that make it necessary to use alternatives. Essential oil (EO) and cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouthwashes effectively reduce plaque and gingivitis. Hence, the aim of this review is to assess and compare the available data on the efficacy of CPC and EO mouthwashes in reducing plaque and gingivitis.
methodsScopus, PubMed, Cochrane, Science Direct, EBSCOhost, Lilacs, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the earliest available year (1990) till January 10, 2025. PICO Strategy: P: Individuals with plaque and gingivitis; I: CPC mouthwash; C: EO mouthwash; O: Reduction in plaque and gingivitis. The review only comprised randomised controlled trials. The risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence were assessed using the RoB-2 Tool and GRADE Tool respectively.
resultsAfter meeting the eligibility requirements, seven full-text publications were assessed for qualitative synthesis and six articles for quantitative synthesis. Overall, there was no significant difference in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis between CPC and EO mouthwashes. At two weeks, however, EO demonstrated a greater reduction in gingivitis (SMD: 4.67 [4.08, 5.26]; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%). Both mouthwashes were equally effective at reducing plaque and gingivitis at one, three, and six months.
conclusionWhile CPC mouthwash matched EO mouthwash's long-term efficacy, EO mouthwash demonstrated superior short-term anti-gingivitis effects. Both were equally successful in reducing plaque. Depending on the needs of the patient, either can be utilized because of their distinct mechanism of action. Additional research should be done to reduce bias and enhance the methodology. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42025638243.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40413358What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.