Essential oils mouthwash with or without alcohol in relation to effect on parameters of plaque and gingivitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractAimThe 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.Materials and MethodsThe 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.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionWhen 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.