Oil pulling to relieve medication‐induced xerostomia: A randomized, single‐blind, crossover trial

Ludwar, Lena; Mannel, Hilke; Hamacher, Stefanie; Noack, Michael; Barbe, Anna Greta

doi:10.1111/odi.13752

Cited by 8 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cut‐off value of 4 cm on the VAS was chosen by the authors when defining these inclusion groups because the subjective dry mouth group should represent people with a relevant subjective burden; those with a very low burden should be left out. Similar considerations have already been published by this group for subjective dry mouth inclusion criteria for other studies [40]. According to our sample size calculation (described below), each of those inclusion groups comprised N = 30 participants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Using the modified Schirmer test for dry mouth assessment: A cross‐sectional study

Schoppmeier

Helpap

Hagemeier

et al. 2022

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to establish whether the modified Schirmer test could serve as a diagnostic tool for dry mouth, that is, whether it could reliably measure salivary film at selected locations within the oral cavity, and to identify levels of sensitivity/specificity and determine reference values. Therefore, a cross-sectional study (N = 120, mean age 63.5 [SD 13.9] years) was performed. The test was used at five locations (hard palate; buccal mucosa in molar region at 4 mm above occlusal plane; anterior tongue; lower lip; mouth floor), and results were recorded after 1, 2 and 3 min. A statistically significant discriminatory ability of the Schirmer test for the unstimulated salivary flow rates could be shown for the palate (at 3 min), buccal mucosa (at 1 min), mouth floor (at 1 min), and tongue (at 2 and 3 min) (areas under the curve 0.64-0.68), with individual sensitivity/specificity values depending on test location/time points. Thus, the modified Schirmer test has potential to become a simple and reproducible instrument for the detection of dry mouth based on low unstimulated salivary flow rates in dentistry and especially outreach care. Care must be taken concerning intraoral test location and measurement time.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Using the modified Schirmer test for dry mouth assessment: A cross‐sectional study

Schoppmeier

Helpap

Hagemeier

et al. 2022

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarized the characteristics of the included trial studies. From the 25 trials involving 1184 participants, the majority were conducted in India (n = 19), 11,13,14,18,20,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] whereas the remaining trials were implemented in Turkey, 43 Egypt, 52 Germany, 21 Malaysia, 53 and two with no reported region of study. 54,55 The number of participants included in each trial was comparatively small, ranging between 8 to 75.…”

Section: Participantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority (17 out of 25) of the trials included participants with no reported oral health issues. 11,14,18,20,[39][40][41][44][45][46][50][51][52][53][54]56,57 Of the remaining eight trials, six trials recruited participants with mild to moderate gingivitis, 13,42,[47][48][49]55 one trial included participants with Xerostomia, 21 and one trial included post-dental operative adults. 43 Trials comprised of mainly adults.…”

Section: Participantmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of oil pulling in comparison with chlorhexidine and other mouthwash interventions in promoting oral health: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Jong,

Ooi,

Teoh

2023

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesA meta‐analytic review was performed to critically synthesize the evidence of oil pulling on improving the parameters of gingival health, plaque control and bacteria counts against chlorhexidine and other mouthwash or oral hygiene practices.MethodsDatabases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta‐analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse‐variance random‐effects model.ResultsTwenty‐five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty‐one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non‐chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta‐analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non‐chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = −1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.31, −0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low.ConclusionsThere was a probable benefit of oil pulling in improving gingival health. Chlorhexidine remained superior in reducing the amount of plaque, compared to oil pulling. However, there was very low certainty in the evidence albeit the clinically beneficial effect of oil pulling intervention.

show abstract

“…However, these synthetic compounds also showed some adverse effects. Natural or herbal extracts may be alternative options to reduce oral infection with few adverse effects in the bacterial reduction (Sookkhee et al, 2001), inhibition of plaque development (Amith et al, 2007;Asokan et al, 2009), prevention of caries and gingivitis (An et al, 2008;Peedikayil et al, 2015), relief of dry mouth (Ludwar et al, 2022), reduction of bad breath (Asokan et al, 2011a), and inhibition of fungal growth (Ogbolu et al, 2007;Owittayakul et al, 2018). One of these options was vegetable oil pulling for promoting oral hygiene (Shanbhag, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Formulation of Coconut Oil Mouthwash with Mixed Emulsifier and Its Growth Inhibition of Candida albicans Biofilms

Chanpa¹,

Owittayakul²,

Wanachantararak³

et al. 2023

NLSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virgin coconut oil has been used for oil pulling, which helps to promote oral health and can inhibit oral fungi. Due to 15-20 minutes of rinsing time, oily taste, and instability of lately developed mouthwashes, this present study aimed to develop a mouthwash formula from virgin coconut oil with good stability and appropriate rinsing time to inhibit Candida albicans in biofilm. The formulation results showed that the mixed emulsifiers between tween 80 and span 80 at the ratio of 40:60 were appropriate to use as the mixed emulsifier of virgin coconut oil. After the formulation, seven mouthwash formulas including F5 (10:25:65), F21 (20:20:60), F36 (30:20:50), F49 (40:20:40), F59 (50:15:35), F67 (60:10:30) and F73 (70:5:25) which comprised the ratios among virgin coconut oil: mixed emulsifier: distilled water, respectively, exhibited the stable emulsion by using the lowest mixed emulsifier in each ratio. Results from the XTT assay at various exposure times demonstrated that a five-minute exposure with formula F73 exhibited the highest inhibitory activity against C. albicans biofilm with a significant difference compared to other formulas. To confirm the anticandidal activity, the F73 formula could inhibit the growth of C. albicans after enumerating the colonies with an exposure time of five minutes. It may be concluded that the appropriate virgin coconut oil mouthwash was formulated at the ratio of coconut oil: mixed emulsifier: distilled water at 70:5:25 and could inhibit C. albicans after five minutes of exposure. Keywords: Formulation, Coconut oil mouthwash, Mixed emulsifier, Candida albicans, Biofilm

show abstract

Oil pulling to relieve medication‐induced xerostomia: A randomized, single‐blind, crossover trial

Cited by 8 publications

References 36 publications

Using the modified Schirmer test for dry mouth assessment: A cross‐sectional study

Using the modified Schirmer test for dry mouth assessment: A cross‐sectional study

The effect of oil pulling in comparison with chlorhexidine and other mouthwash interventions in promoting oral health: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Formulation of Coconut Oil Mouthwash with Mixed Emulsifier and Its Growth Inhibition of Candida albicans Biofilms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About