SynthesisOdontology2026
Development of oral dysbiosis following use of antimicrobial mouthwashes: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Trends in Antimicrobial Oral Hygiene Products, the Oral Microbiome, and Dental Biofilm: A Bibliometric Analysis (2006-2025).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Delayed shifts in salivary microbiota composition following long-term use of 0.06% chlorhexidine toothpaste.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The oral microbiome maintains the oral and systemic health. The extensive use of antimicrobial mouthwashes to control biofilm-related diseases has increased the concerns about their effect on microbial ecology. Specific formulations may cause microbial shifts which influences both the oral and systemic physiology in an individual. This systematic review evaluates the oral dysbiosis development after antimicrobial mouthwash use and correlates the microbial changes with clinical and systemic outcomes. A comprehensive search in various databases like PubMed, Scopus, etc. (till March 2025) was done. It identified 14 relevant studies from a total of 681 screened records. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2, ROBINS-I, CRIS, and NOS tools, with data extracted on microbial diversity, taxonomic changes, nitrate reduction capacity, and antibiotic resistance. The findings showed that chlorhexidine caused the greatest dysbiosis and reduces the microbial diversity by 40-60%, with increasing Streptococcus spp. two-to-threefold, and elevating antibiotic resistance gene prevalence. Cetylpyridinium chloride and polyhexamethylene biguanide showed milder effects, thus preserving 70-80% of commensals, while herbal and plant-based rinses (o-cymen-5-ol, StellaLife®, Rosella) reduced pathogens by 25-40% without disrupting the balance. Fluoride-arginine formulations promote beneficial bacteria by 30-50% but marginally upregulated resistance genes, whereas mechanical hygiene methods maintained over 90% microbial diversity. Suppression of nitrate-reducing bacteria was associated with reduced nitric oxide bioavailability, potentially increasing vascular and cognitive risks. Hence, antimicrobial mouthwashes especially chlorhexidine induces significant dysbiotic shifts, while herbal, postbiotic, and mechanical alternatives demonstrate safer, microbiome thereby preserving the effects which is suitable for long-term oral health maintenance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41335295What 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.