Table 2. Summary of information contained in the articles included in this review.

Author, country	Number of individuals/sex/mean age	Mouthwash	Concentration		Quantity (ml)/duration of exposure (s)	Duration of study (days)	What was studied	Microorganism - Microbiological count	Conclusion
Rosin et al.,11 Germany	16/12 men/4 women/23.4 years	PHMB (0.04%) mouth rinse: 0.2% Lavasept (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany), 0.1% aromatic oil (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 0.1% Cremophor (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 10.4% ethanol (96%), 90.2% Ringer’s solution. Placebo mouth rinse: 0.1% aromatic oil, 0.1% Cremophor, 10.4% ethanol (96%), 90.4% deionized water. CHX mouth rinse (0.12%): 6% chlorhexidine digluconate (20%) (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 94% deionized water. Skinsept mucosa (diluted in 0.12% chlorhexidine): 40% SkinseptA mucosa (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 6.24% ethanol (96%), 1% hydrogen peroxide (30.42%), 0.12% lactic acid, 52.64% deionized water.	CHX - 0.12%	PHMB - 0.04%	20/60	4	The effects on dental biofilm and oral bacterial count were compared.	Oral biofilm - Dental biofilm index and smears of dental surface and cheek mucosa (on days 1 and 5) and CFU count per sample. Four hours after the first use of mouthwashes, there was no statistical difference between PHMB, Skinsept and placebo, while CHX was superior for destruction of dental biofilm after 4 hours. In the mucosa, 4 hours after the first use of the mouthwashes, all mouthwashes were more effective than placebo for destroying oral biofilm. Twelve hours after the final use of mouthwashes, CHX was the most effective in destroying oral biofilm, PHMB was statistically more effective than placebo, while Skinsept did not show any difference in reducing biofilm, compared with placebo.	CHX 0.12% was more effective than PHMB 0.04% and placebo for destroying bacterial biofilm. The substantivity of CHX was always 12 hours. The substantivity of PHMB was 4 hours in the oral mucosa only. The antibacterial effect of PHMB was significantly greater than placebo on the mucosa alone.
Rosin et al.,12 Germany	16/ 6 men/ 10 women/ 23.4 years	PHMB (0.12%) mouth rinse: 0.6% LavaseptA (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany), 0.1% aromatic oil (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 0.1% Cremophor (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 10.4% ethanol (96%), 88.8% Ringer’s solution. Placebo mouth rinse: 0.1% aromatic oil (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 0.1% Cremophor (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 10.4% ethanol (96%), 89.4% deionized water. CHX mouth rinse (0.12%): 0.6% chlorhexidine digluconate (20%) (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 94% deionized water. Essential oil mouth rinse: Listerine antiseptic (Warner-Lambert, Consumer Healthcare Products, Freiburg, Germany).	CHX - 0.12%	PHMB - 0.12%	20/60	4	To increase the PHMB concentration from 0.04% to 0.12% and evaluate the effects on the biofilm formed and oral bacterial counts, compared with CHX 0.12%. To include an established commercial product (Listerine) available for another comparison.	Oral biofilm - Dental biofilm index and smears of the dental surface and cheek mucosa (on days 1 and 5) and CFU count per sample. Four hours after the first use of mouthwashes, no statistical difference was observed between PHMB and Listerine or PHMB and CHX regarding destruction of dental biofilm; and 12 hours after the final use of mouthwashes, PHMB was more effective for inhibiting bacterial growth than Listerine. In the mucosa, 4 hours after the first use of mouthwashes, CHX was the most effective for destruction of oral biofilm. Twelve hours after the final use of rinses, CHX was the most effective and PHMB was significantly better than placebo for destroying oral biofilm.	PHMB mouthwash showed significantly greater inhibition of bacterial biofilm growth than placebo. The bacterial count indicated persistence of PHMB antimicrobial activity 4 hours after use.
Welk et al.,13 Germany	16/ 6 men/ 10 women/ 21.1 years	PHMB (0.2%) mouth rinse: 1.0% Lavasept s containing 20% PHMB (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany), 0.1% aromatic oil (Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany), 0.1% Cremophor (Henkel), 10.4% ethanol (96%), 88.6% Ringer’s solution. CHX (0.12%) mouth rinse: 6% solution of 20% chlorhexidine digluconate stock solution (Henkel), 94% deionized water. Triclosan (0.3%)/ copolymer (2.0%) mouth rinse: Commercially available Colgate Total Plax s mouth rinse (Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, United States) containing 0.3% 2,4,40-trichloro-20-hydroxydiphenyl ether/2.0% polyvinyl methyl ether maleic acid (PVM/MA) copolymer. Placebo mouth rinse: 0.1% aromatic oil (Henkel), 0.1% Cremophor (Henkel), 10.4% ethanol (96%), 89.4% deionized water.	CHX - 0.12%	PHMB - 0.20%	20/60	5	Comparison of mouthwash containing PHMB (0.2%) with mouthwash containing CHX (0.12%), to evaluate its effect on the growth of dental biofilm and on oral bacterial count.	Oral biofilm - Quigley & Hein18 dental biofilm index (QHI), as modified by Turesky et al.19 After the first use of mouthwashes, it was observed that CHX was statistically more effective in destroying dental biofilm than other mouthwashes and 8 hours after the final use of mouthwashes, PHMB inhibited bacterial growth more effectively compared with triclosan and placebo. In the mucosa, after the first use of mouthwashes, all mouthwashes were more effective than placebo in destroying oral biofilm, but there was no statistical difference between them. Eight hours after the final use of rinses, PHMB was equally effective in destroying oral biofilm, compared with CHX.	The mouthwash with 2.0% PHMB was significantly less effective in destroying bacterial biofilm than 0.12% aqueous CHX. After 8 hours of using PHMB, inhibition of bacterial growth was still observed.
Paraskevas et al.,15 Switzerland	77/ 34 men/ 43 women/ 23.2 years	10 Quist-forte (containing 100-ppm free ClO2): The rinse was activated when 5 ml base solution was mixed with 5 ml activator solution. De Witte Tanden Winkel, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Corsodyl (containing 0.20% CHX, digluconate, ethanol, polyoxyl hydrogenated castor oil, sorbitol, E-125, purified water), GlaxoSmithKline, Zeist, Netherlands.	CHX - 0.20%	ClO2 - 0.01%	10/60	3	To evaluate inhibition of growth of dental biofilm through use of mouthwash containing ClO2, compared with mouthwash with CHX, over the course of a 3-day dental biofilm growth model.	Dental biofilm - Dental biofilm index - In the control group (CHX), the overall average dental biofilm index was 1.39, compared with 1.96 in the test group (ClO2), (P < 0.001).	The ClO2 rinse was a less potent bacterial biofilm inhibitor than the CHX rinse.
Uludamar et al.,14 Turkey	60/ 23 men/ 37 women/ 60.8 ± 15 years	Tissue conditioner material Visco-gel, Dentsply Detrey GmbH, Detrey-straße 1, D-78467 Konstanz, Germany ClO2 (0.8%) dioxidant, Frontier Pharmaceutical, Inc., Melville, NY, United States). Corsodyl (0.2% CHX gluconate), Group Laboratories SA (Pty) Ltd., Epping Industrial 1, Cape Town, South Africa.	CHX - 0.20%	ClO2 - 0.80%	30/60	15	The effect of tissue conditioning and two mouthwashes on resolution of clinical symptoms of prosthetic stomatitis and on reduction of Candida albicans.	Candida albicans - The method of Budtz-Jorgensen et al.20 was used to classify the clinical effects of the treatment: Healing (without inflammation) - tissue conditioner: 40%; ClO2: 60% and CHX: 70%. Improvement (decrease in inflammation) - tissue conditioner: 25%; ClO2: 25% and CHX: 20%. Failure (no change in inflammation) - tissue conditioner: 35%; ClO2: 15% and CHX: 10%. The UFC/ml count was used to assess the effect on fungal biofilm - before/after UFC treatment/ml (P-value): tissue conditioner: 208.35/196.15 (P = 0.4); ClO2: 204.75/74.21 (P = 0.001) and CHX: 202.24/57.81 (P = 0.001).	Use of both mouthwashes (ClO2 and CHX) eliminated hyphae, decreased palatal inflammation and eliminated Candida colonization.
Yadav et al.,8 India	25/ 11 men/ 14 women/ 19.8 years	Stabilized ClO2 mouth rinse in aqueous vehicle Fresh Chlor (Rowpar Group Pharmaceuticals, Bangalore, India). CHX (0.2%) gluconate mouth rinse in aqueous vehicle Hexedine (ICPA, Bangalore, India).	CHX - 0.20%	ClO2 - ur	10/60	5	To evaluate the effectiveness of a mouthwash containing stabilized ClO2 and a mouthwash containing CHX for inhibiting accumulation of biofilm on the tongue and formation of dental biofilm.	Oral biofilm - The marine dental biofilm index as modified by Rustogi was used to evaluate the teeth, the Winkel index and wet weight of the coating were used to evaluate the tongue and microbiological analysis was done using UFC. on samples collected from the dental and mucosal surfaces. The marine biofilm index as modified by Rustogi, the Winkel index and the wet weight of the tongue coating did not show any statistical difference between the groups. The biofilm collected after 4 hours demonstrated that use of CHX gave rise to UFC/sample smaller than what resulted from use of ClO2 on the teeth: mean CHX 30.6800 and ClO2: 35.8800 (P = 0.001); and on the mucosa: mean CHX: 37.6400 and ClO2: 45.2800 (P = 0.00 (6.244E-5)).	The inhibitory properties against dental biofilm, the rate of accumulation of tongue biofilm and the antibacterial properties of the mouthwash with ClO2 were comparable to those of the mouthwash with CHX.
Yeturu et al.,17 India	85/ 40 men/ 45 women Aloe vera group (21.53 ± 3.41); CHX group (21.72 ± 4.67) and ClO2 group (21.70 ± 3.01).	Aloe vera, ClO2 and CHX.	CHX - ur	ClO2 - ur	10/60	15	To evaluate the effect of mouthwashes containing Aloe vera, ClO2 and CHX on biofilm and gingivitis during orthodontic treatment.	Dental biofilm - Dental biofilm index of Silness and Loe and gingival index. Average percentage reduction in the dental biofilm index: Aloe vera (20.38%), CHX (31.59%) and ClO2 (30.29%), with P = 0.03. Average percentage reduction in the gingival index: Aloe vera (9.88%), CHX (16.30%) and ClO2 (12.22%), with P = 0.04.	Aloe vera and ClO2 showed reductions in dental and gingival biofilm rates that were almost the same as that of CHX over a period of 15 days. Therefore, ClO2 and Aloe vera may be suitable and economical alternatives to CHX.
Eunike et al.,16 Indonesia	16/ ur/ 6-11 years (age variation)	Mouthwash containing ClO2 (0.1%) and mouthwash containing CHX (0.1%).	CHX - 0.10%	ClO2 - 0.10%	10/30	7	To evaluate the antibacterial effects of mouthwashes on the bacterial viability of Actinomyces sp. as a black spot agent.	Actinomyces sp. - Feasibility test with MTT test and culturing of black spot samples by means of visual inspection and Gram staining. Average viability (from optical density) of Actinomyces before/after using rinses (P-value) was: CHX: 0.67/0.54 (P = 0.01) and ClO2: 0.73/0.40 (P = 0.001).	Mouthwash containing 0.1% ClO2 had greater antibacterial effect against Actinomyces sp. than rinse containing 0.1% CHX.