↓ Skip to main content

Mouthrinses for the treatment of halitosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mouthrinses for the treatment of halitosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006701.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zbys Fedorowicz, Hamad Aljufairi, Mona Nasser, Trent L Outhouse, Vinícius Pedrazzi, Fedorowicz, Zbys, Aljufairi, Hamad, Nasser, Mona, Outhouse, Trent L, Pedrazzi, Vinícius

Abstract

Halitosis is an unpleasant odour emanating from the oral cavity. Mouthwashes, which are commonly used for dealing with oral malodour, can be generally divided into those that neutralize and those that mask the odour. To investigate the effects of mouthrinses in controlling halitosis. We searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to August 2008); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 3); MEDLINE (1950 to August 2008); EMBASE (1980 to August 2008); and CINAHL (1982 to August 2008). There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mouthrinses to placebo in adults over the age of 18 with halitosis and without significant other comorbidities or health conditions.The primary outcomes considered were self expressed and organoleptic (human nose) assessments of halitosis, and the secondary outcomes included assessment of halitosis as measured by a halimeter, portable sulphide monitor or by gas chromatography coupled with flame-photometric detection. Two independent review authors screened and extracted information from, and independently assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. Five RCTs, involving 293 participants who were randomised to mouthrinses or placebo, were included in this review.In view of the clinical heterogeneity between the trials, pooling of the results and meta-analysis of the extracted data was not feasible and therefore only a descriptive summary of the results of the included trials is provided.0.05% chlorhexidine + 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride + 0.14% zinc lactate mouthrinse significantly reduced the mean change (standard deviation (SD)) of organoleptic scores from baseline compared to placebo (-1.13 (1.1) P < 0.005 versus -0.2 (0.7)) and also caused a more significant reduction in the mean change (SD) in peak level of volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) (-120 (92) parts per billion (ppb) versus 8 (145) ppb in placebo). The chlorhexidine cetylpyridinium chloride zinc lactate mouthrinse showed significantly more tongue (P < 0.001) and tooth (P < 0.002) staining compared to placebo.However, in view of the incomplete reporting of results in three of the trials and the sole use of the halimeter for assessment of VSC levels as outcomes in two further trials, caution should be exercised in interpreting these results. Mouthrinses containing antibacterial agents such as chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride may play an important role in reducing the levels of halitosis-producing bacteria on the tongue, and chlorine dioxide and zinc containing mouthrinses can be effective in neutralisation of odouriferous sulphur compounds.Well designed randomised controlled trials with a larger sample size, a longer intervention and follow-up period are still needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 20%
Australia 1 20%
Unknown 3 60%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 220%
Student > Master 10 200%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 160%
Unspecified 8 160%
Student > Postgraduate 6 120%
Other 25 500%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 820%
Unspecified 9 180%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 100%
Arts and Humanities 4 80%
Materials Science 2 40%
Other 7 140%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#329,633
of 13,309,606 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#917
of 10,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,560
of 149,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,309,606 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 149,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.