↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Mouthrinses for the treatment of halitosis

Overview of attention for article published in this source, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

3 news outlets
1 blog
15 tweeters
2 Facebook pages
8 Wikipedia pages


93 Dimensions

Readers on

64 Mendeley
Mouthrinses for the treatment of halitosis
Published by
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006701.pub2
Pubmed ID

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


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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 17 27%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 22%