What do systematic reviews say?

Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash vs Chlorhexidine + zinc mouthwash

It is very uncertain whether cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash changes dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) score (scale 0 to 5) compared with chlorhexidine + zinc mouthwash (very low certainty).

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  mean 2 weeks
  MD -0.33 [-0.72, 0.06]
  1 study · 44 participants
  Very low

Mechanical tongue cleaning (tongue scraper) vs No tongue cleaning

Mechanical tongue cleaning (tongue scraper) showed no clear difference in volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) compared with no tongue cleaning; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 week
  MD -7.69 [-47.08, 31.69]
  2 studies · 46 participants
  GRADE not reported

Toothbrushing + Turkish gall oral rinse vs Toothbrushing alone

Toothbrushing + Turkish gall oral rinse showed no clear difference in dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) score (scale 0 to 5) compared with toothbrushing; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 weeks
  MD -0.1 [-0.5, 0.3]
  1 study · 66 participants
  GRADE not reported

Essential oil mouthwash vs Placebo mouthwash

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 weeks
  Adverse events reported by Borden 2002 were not related to the interventions.
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Lactobacillus beta lactoperoxidase (LPO) tablets vs placebo (3 tablets/4 times a day

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Nakano 2017 (2-arm trial) compared Lactobacillus beta LPO tablets versus placebo tablets (VSC by OralChroma). The trial did not report any usable data and hence could not be included in the analysis.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Triphala and Ela decoction mouthwash vs Chlorhexidine mouthwash

It is very uncertain whether triphala and Ela decoction mouthwash changes dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) score (scale 0 to 5) compared with chlorhexidine mouthwash (very low certainty).

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  mean 2 weeks
  MD 0.2 [0.09, 0.31]
  1 study · 60 participants
  Very low

Triclosan/copolymer-containing fluoride toothpaste vs Sodium fluoride (control) toothpaste

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  mean 1 week
  Adverse events: listed in the Summary of findings table but no data reported. No data were reported for adverse events.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Hinokitiol gel vs Placebo gel

Hinokitiol gel showed no clear difference in VSC: hydrogen sulphide compared with placebo gel; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  28 days
  MD -2.13 [-5.33, 1.08]
  1 study · 18 participants
  GRADE not reported

Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash vs Chlorhexidine + zinc mouthwash

Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash showed no clear difference in volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) compared with chlorhexidine + zinc mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 weeks
  MD 0.49 [-8.68, 9.66]
  1 study · 44 participants
  GRADE not reported

Halita mouthrinse vs Perio-plus mouthrinse

It is very uncertain whether halita mouthrinse changes dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) score (scale 0 to 5) compared with perio-plus mouthrinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  mean 8 days
  MD -0.2 [-0.86, 0.46]
  1 study · 36 participants
  Very low

1000 mg champignon extract vs 50 mg champignon extract

1000 mg champignon extract showed no clear difference in patient's family member-reported VAS score (scale 0 to 100) compared with 50 mg champignon extract; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 weeks
  MD -0.61 [-15.58, 14.36]
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

Herbal mouthwash vs Placebo mouthwash

Herbal mouthwash led to lower volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) compared with placebo mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15 days
  MD -70.29 [-121.01, -19.57]
  1 study · 60 participants
  GRADE not reported

Toothbrushing + tongue cleaning with a tooth-and-tongue gel (amine/stannous fluoride + zinc lactate) vs Toothbrushing with reference toothpaste (with or without tongue cleaning)

• Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Wilhelm 2012 (3-arm cross-over trial) compared toothbrushing with a reference toothpaste, with reference toothpaste plus tongue cleaning, and toothbrushing plus tongue cleaning with a tooth-and-tongue gel (OLT, VSC,…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer mortality (disease-specific) compared with no screening (low certainty).

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 0.88 [0.69, 1.12]
  1 study · 191873 participants
  Low
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.76 [0.60, 0.97]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  9 years (three cycles)
  The costs associated with the screening programme were reported after three cycles (nine years) (Subramanian 2009) (Additional Table 8). The benefit produced by a screen was 269.31 life-years saved per 100,000 for all…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  No harms were reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer incidence compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  RR 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]
  1 study · 191873 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up · High-risk individuals (tobacco and/or alcohol users)
  RR 0.97 [0.79, 1.19]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  Data on quality of life were not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  15-year follow-up
  Across the four cycles (15 years), the reported sensitivity of the visual examination in detecting oral cancer was 67.4% (188/279). No information on the specificity or the positive predictive value of the programme…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

• Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  5-year survival
  A significantly higher five-year survival rate was reported in the screened group (55.5%) compared to the control (43.4%) (P value = 0.003).
  1 study · 523 participants
  GRADE not reported