PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to formulate a custom-made, 2-color chewing gum for the mixing ability test and to develop an image-processing method for color mixing analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Specimens of red-green (RG) chewing gum were prepared as a test food. Twenty dentate participants (10 men, 10 women; mean age 21 years) took part in this study. Each participant masticated 1 piece of RG gum for 3, 6, 9, 15, and 25 cycles, and this task was repeated 3 times consecutively (total n=15 for each participant). The boluses were retrieved and flattened to 1-mm-thick wafers and scanned with a flatbed scanner. The digital images were analyzed using ImageJ software equipped with a custom-built plug-in to measure the geometric dispersion (GD) of baseline red segment. The predictive criterion validity of this method was determined by correlating GD to the number of mastication cycles. The hardness and mass of RG chewing gum were measured before and after mastication. Hardness loss (%) and mass loss (%) were then calculated and compared with those of a commercially available chewing gum.

OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated the effectiveness of chewing gum on promoting faster bowel function and its ability to hasten recovery for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) after posterior spinal fusion (PSF) surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Sham feeding with chewing gum had been reported to reduce the incidence of postoperative ileus by accelerating recovery of bowel function.

METHODS: We prospectively recruited and randomized 60 patients with AIS scheduled for PSF surgery into treatment (chewing gum) and control group. The patient-controlled anesthesia usage, wound pain score, abdominal pain score, nausea score, and abdominal girth were assessed and recorded at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 hours postoperatively. The timing for the first fluid intake, first oral intake, sitting up, walking, first flatus after surgery, first bowel opening after surgery, and duration of hospital stay were also assessed and recorded.

RESULTS: We found that there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in patient-controlled anesthesia usage, wound pain score, abdominal pain score, nausea score, and abdominal girth between treatment (chewing gum) and control groups. We also found that there were no significant difference (P > 0.05) in postoperative recovery parameters, which were the first fluid intake, first oral intake, sitting up after surgery, walking after surgery, first flatus after surgery, first bowel opening after surgery, and duration of hospital stay between both groups. The wound pain was the worst at 12 hours postoperatively, which progressively improved in both groups. The abdominal pain progressively worsened to the highest score at 48 hours in the treatment group and 36 hours in the control group before improving after that. The pattern of severity and recovery of wound pain and abdominal pain was different.

CONCLUSION: We found that chewing gum did not significantly reduce the abdominal pain, promote faster bowel function, or hasten patient recovery.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of home-based tooth whitening products with chemical bleaching action, dispensed by a dentist or over-the-counter.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 12 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 12 June 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 June 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (12 June 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (12 June 2018) were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in our review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults who were 18 years and above, and compared dentist-dispensed or over-the-counter tooth whitening (bleaching) products with placebo or other comparable products.Quasi-randomised trials, combination of in-office and home-based treatments, and home-based products having physical removal of stains were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials. Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 71 trials in the review with 26 studies (1398 participants) comparing a bleaching agent to placebo and 51 studies (2382 participants) comparing a bleaching agent to another bleaching agent. Two studies were at low overall risk of bias; two at high overall risk of bias; and the remaining 67 at unclear overall risk of bias.The bleaching agents (carbamide peroxide (CP) gel in tray, hydrogen peroxide (HP) gel in tray, HP strips, CP paint-on gel, HP paint-on gel, sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) chewing gum, sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) chewing gum, and HP mouthwash) at different concentrations with varying application times whitened teeth compared to placebo over a short time period (from 2 weeks to 6 months), however the certainty of the evidence is low to very low.In trials comparing one bleaching agent to another, concentrations, application method and application times, and duration of use varied widely. Most of the comparisons were reported in single trials with small sample sizes and event rates and certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to very low. Therefore the evidence currently available is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions regarding the superiority of home-based bleaching compositions or any particular method of application or concentration or application time or duration of use.Tooth sensitivity and oral irritation were the most common side effects which were more prevalent with higher concentrations of active agents though the effects were mild and transient. Tooth whitening did not have any effect on oral health-related quality of life.