<h4>Aim</h4>The primary aim was to systematically assess the available literature on the effect of an essential oils mouthwash without alcohol (EOalc-) compared to an essential oils mouthwash with alcohol (EOalc+) on plaque scores and parameters of gingival health. The secondary aim was to evaluate user appreciation.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to and including March 2024. Papers comparing the effectiveness of EOalc- and EOalc+ were included. The quality was assessed. A descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed.<h4>Results</h4>After screening, seven papers were found to be eligible. The descriptive analysis demonstrates a significant difference in plaque scores in favour of EOalc+. This is confirmed by the meta-analyses of plaque scores in non-brushing and brushing studies (DiffM = 0.40; 95% CI [0.27; 0.53], p < 0.00001 and DiffM = 0.05; 95% CI [0.01; 0.10], p = 0.01, respectively). This finding is also supported by the sub-analysis of brands. The meta-analyses of bleeding and gingival scores in brushing studies did not show significant differences between products. For user appreciation, the difference found was for taste perception in favour of EOalc- (DiffM = 1.63; 95% CI [0.72; 2.55], p = 0.0004).<h4>Conclusion</h4>When an EO-mouthwash is used in non-brushing or brushing situations, with small to moderate certainty, EOalc- provided less effect regarding plaque control than EOalc+. For bleeding and gingival index there is weak certainty for no difference. In terms of the taste perception EOalc- seems more appreciated.

Introduction: Power chains is the common device used in fixed orthodontic treatment. Force decay in power chains is a problem that can affect the teeth movement due to a continuous force cannot be maintained. Force decay in power chain can be affected by the use of alcohol-containing mouthwash or alcohol-free mouthwash. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of alcoholic-containing mouthwash, alcohol-free mouthwash, and artificial saliva towards the power chains force decay. Methods: This research was an experimental analytic laboratory in-vitro with the comparative approach. The sample in this study were 40 power chain, short A (SA); 40 power chain, short B (SB); 40 power chain, long A (LA); and 40 power chain, long B (LB), which divided into 5 groups that were consecutively exposed to the artificial saliva as control group; Minosep® with 0.1% of chlorhexidine gluconate; Listerine® with 0% of alcohol; Hexadol® with 9% of alcohol; and Listerine® with 26.9% of alcohol. The measurement of force decay was performed with digital force gauge on day 0, 1, 14, and 28. The statistical analysis was done by using the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests. Result: There was a significant difference (p&lt;0.05) between the force decay of power chain that exposed to the alcohol-containing mouthwash, alcohol-free mouthwash, and the artificial saliva. Conclusion: The force decay level of power chain that exposed to an alcohol-containing mouthwash was higher compared to the force decay level of power chain that exposed to an alcohol-free mouthwash and an artificial saliva.

<h4>Background and aim</h4>Effective oral hygiene using different mechanical means is mainly dependent on the patient. Mouthwashes containing antimicrobial agents have been developed to be used as an adjunct to mechanical supragingival plaque control. The aim of this umbrella review is to evaluate and compare the long-term efficacy of commonly used, commercially available daily mouthwashes in plaque control and gingival inflammation.<h4>Methods</h4>The current umbrella review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions using the PICOS format. The search was conducted in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science. Nine systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the long-term efficacy of commercially available mouthwashes (low-concentration chlorhexidine [CHX], cetylpyridinium chloride [CPC], mouthwashes with essential oils [EOs], fluoride and oxygen-releasing mouthwashes) were included.<h4>Results</h4>The results revealed that in all SRs/MAs, the prolonged daily use of mouthwashes helped in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation indices but not always with statistical significance.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Results of the present study indicate that the long-term use of mouthwashes containing EOs seems to give the best results in both reducing plaque levels and improving gingivitis indices among all tested formulations.<h4>Trial registration</h4>PROSPERO Registration Number CRD 42024618552.

<h4>Introduction</h4>Pregnancy is linked to hormonal fluctuations, making pregnant women more susceptible to gingival and periodontal diseases. Hence, oral hygiene interventions, such as mouthwashes and toothpastes, play a crucial role in maintaining oral hygiene among women. However, the interventions used should be effective as well as safe to use. Hence, this systematic review assesses the effectiveness of various oral hygiene interventions, which include mouthwashes, saltwater rinses, and toothpastes, on the oral health of pregnant women.<h4>Methods</h4>A detailed literature search was done using PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar, including studies published in the last 6 years. Only randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and systematic reviews relevant to the objective of this study were included. The quality assessment of the included studies was done using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. According to this tool, all the selected studies had moderate-to-high quality.<h4>Results</h4>The three studies were finally selected that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria based on the PRISMA flowchart. Alcohol-free mouthwashes including fluorides, antibacterial toothpastes, and saltwater rinses were found to improve gingival health and decrease plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. Some additional agents were found to be as effective as chlorhexidine during pregnancy.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Oral hygiene interventions based on saltwater rinses, fluoridated mouthwashes, and toothpastes improve oral health in pregnant women. These agents are effective and easily available for better oral hygiene during pregnancy and better pregnancy outcomes.

Abstract Background: The purpose of this review is to systematically evaluate the effects of an essential-oil mouthwash compared to a chlorhexidine mouthwash with respect to plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation. Methods: PubMed databases were searched for studies up to and including may 2015. A comprehensive search was designed and the articles were independently screened. Articles that evaluated the effects of the essential oil mouthwash compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash were included. A meta-analysis was performed, and weighted mean differences were calculated. Results: A total of 17 unique articles were found, of which 11 articles met the eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis of long-term studies (duration &gt; 3 months) showed that the essential oil mouthwash provided significantly better effects regarding prophylactic plaque control than chlorhexidine Conclusion: In long-term use, the standardized formulation of essential oil mouthwash is more reliable than chlorhexidine mouthwash.