4.6 Review

Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents in Dentifrices: A Systematic Review

Journal

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11101413

Keywords

dentifrices; efficacy; antimicrobial activity; antimicrobial agents; in vitro

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of different antimicrobial agents in reducing microorganism numbers in dentifrices for disease prevention. Chemical and herbal antimicrobial agents were commonly used in dentifrices, showing varied effectiveness in reducing microorganisms involved in oral diseases.
The aim of this systematic review was to verify if the presence of different antimicrobial agents in dentifrices is effective in reducing the number of microorganisms for disease prevention. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF). A search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Two independent authors reviewed the titles and abstracts according to the inclusion criteria, which comprised in vitro studies published in English that evaluated the efficacy of antimicrobial agents in dentifrices and their antimicrobial activity. A total of 527 articles were found. Of these, 334 were included for reading of the title and abstract, and 69 were selected for reading in full. In the end, 39 articles remained in this review. Triclosan, sodium fluoride, and sodium monofluorophosphate were the most commonly used chemical antimicrobial agents. Among the herbal agents, miswak extract and neem extract were the most commonly used. The presence of antimicrobial agents in dentifrice formulations can promote the reduction of the number of microorganisms involved in oral diseases, but with variations in their effectiveness, depending on the agent used and the microorganism evaluated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available