The Practice Of Oil Pulling Biology Essay

Published:

The Ayurvedic practice of oil pulling consists of rinsing or swishing with edible oil to prevent and manage oral conditions such as tooth decay, halitosis, gingivitis and xerostomia. Refined plant oils such as sunflower, sesame and olive have widespread appeal; however, sesame oil is the most commonly used due to its nutritional qualities, palatable taste and health benefits.[2] Lignans are a diverse group of plant-derived compounds that are known to have antioxidant and antimicrobial activity. Sesame oil contains three lignans: sesamin, sesamolin, and sesaminol. Additionally, sesame oil contains high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E. In particular, sesamin aids in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and displays antihypertensive activity.[2,3]

Oil pulling requires placing one tablespoon of oil into the mouth (one teaspoon for children between the ages of five to fifteen), where it is sipped, sucked and swished between the teeth for a period up to fifteen minutes, then expectorated.[2] As the oil moves throughout the mouth it mixes with saliva and turns thin and milky white. During this process, people are cautioned not to swallow due to bacteria and toxins that may be present in the oil. Furthermore, it is recommended that oil pulling be performed in the morning, on an empty stomach, followed by tooth brushing and rinsing with water.[2]

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Professional

Essay Writers

Lady Using Tablet

Get your grade
or your money back

using our Essay Writing Service!

Essay Writing Service

With CAM practices expanding, many consumers and health care professionals are exploring oil pulling therapy. This review sought to provide a summary of research related to the effects of oil pulling on oral conditions such as plaque-induced gingivitis, caries, malodor and xerostomia.

Methodology: Internet Search Strategy:

Relevant articles were retrieved through

numerous search engines including CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE and Google Scholar. The following search limiters were placed: full text (freely available), English language, and scholarly (peer reviewed) journals. No date range was selected. Key word and category searches were performed at multiple times using the same parameters. Search key words utilized included: oil pulling, oral rinses, oil rinses, cold pressed refined oil, refined oil, almond oil, sesame oil, sunflower oil, vegetable oil, Ayurvedic medicine,

alternative medicine, alternative oral health care, dental health, and oral health.

Oil Pulling, Plaque and Gingivitis:

Asokan and colleagues evaluated the

effectiveness of oil pulling on plaque-induced gingivitis through clinical and microbiological analysis.[4] Twenty subjects were randomized equally into two groups: experimental sesame oil and 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) control. For ten days, both groups rinsed with either CHX for one minute or sesame oil for ten to fifteen minutes, before morning tooth brushing. Participants were advised to brush their teeth only one time a day. Clinical assessments were scored at baseline and day 10 using the plaque index (PI) (Silness and Löe) and the modified gingival index (MGI) (Lobene). Results revealed that there was a statistically significant decline between pre and post-values of PI and MGI scores in both groups (p = 0.001 for both). Microbiological analysis showed a considerable reduction in the total colony count in both groups; however, this was not statistically significant between groups. Although the exact mechanism of action of oil pulling is unclear, researchers suggest that it was as effective as chlorhexidine in reducing plaque-induced gingivitis, without side effects such as staining or altered taste.[4]

The safety, acceptability and effectiveness of oil pulling on plaque and gingivitis was assessed by Amith and colleagues.[5] Ten male subjects were enrolled in a 45 day study. Baseline oral prophylaxis was not performed allowing participants to start with their normal plaque levels. Participants were advised to maintain their usual self-care practices in addition to oil pulling with refined sunflower oil. Subjects were instructed to swish the oil for a period of 8 to 10 minutes and then expectorate. Plaque (PHP) and gingival (GI) indices were scored at baseline, day 15,

30 and 45. Clinical data revealed a net decline in mean plaque scores, 0.81+ 0.41 (p<0.01) and gingival scores,

0.39+ 0.17 (p<0.01), from baseline to day 45. Oral examinations showed no adverse reactions to hard or

soft tissues during the study. Acceptability of the oil pulling regimen was evaluated with a self-assessment

questionnaire at the conclusion of the study. Eighty percent of participants surveyed were willing to perform oil pulling for the rest of their lives, even

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Comprehensive

Writing Services

Lady Using Tablet

Plagiarism-free
Always on Time

Marked to Standard

Order Now

though the procedure was difficult to master and time consuming. Researchers suggest that oil pulling should

be considered as a supplemental oral hygiene aid because it is easily obtained and economical, yet the disadvantages of compliance and acceptability exist due

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

3

to the length of time and dexterity required to perform the procedure.[5]

In a two-phase study, Busscher et al. examined the clinical efficacy and bacterial growth inhibition of a vegetable oil-based oral rinse.[6] Bacterial growth inhibition was studied in vitro on microorganisms associated with dental caries and gingivitis. Bacterial strains of Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, Veillonella alcalescens, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Actinomyces viscosus were isolated from human subjects, grown overnight in broth and utilized to inoculate a second set of cultures. The concentrated product was then diluted, incubated, and measured with the use of a photospectrometer. Results revealed that two strains generally responsible for dental caries, S. mutans and V. alcalescens, were strongly inhibited by the vegetable oil-based product. Based on these in vitro findings a short clinical study was conducted (N=15). The clinical effectiveness of a vegetable oil-based oral

rinse was compared to six commercially available products: Hibident, Prodent, Meridol, Merocet, Veadent, and Listerine. At baseline, plaque (PI) and gingival scores (GI) were obtained. During the two week preparatory phase (day 0-14) subjects were advised to brush with the assigned non-fluoridated dentifrice. No special oral care instructions were provided. At day 14, plaque (PI), gingival (GI) and planimetry plaque (PP) indices were scored. For the next six days (day 14-20) subjects were advised to discontinue all oral hygiene procedures and to use only their assigned rinse, twice a day, for 30 seconds. At day

20, clinical parameters (PI, GI and PP) were again obtained. Results showed that the vegetable oil-based rinse had PI scores similar to Merocet and Veadent; GI scores comparable to Prodent, Merocet, Veadent and Listerine; and PP scores comparable to Prodent and Merocet. Researchers suggest that the almond oil-based mouthrinse holds promise in maintaining low gingival scores comparable to the commercially available products tested, but caution that long-term clinical efficacy has yet to be established.[6]

A variety of studies have been conducted to assess the effects of oil pulling on plaque and gingivitis with varying results (Table 1). Overall, results suggest that oil pulling holds promise in reducing plaque and gingivitis without negative side effects such as staining and altered taste, yet the technique is often difficult to master and is time consuming.

Oil Pulling and Dental Caries:

Research conducted by Anand and colleagues

utilized oil pulling with sesame oil to evaluate its

effects on S. mutans and L. acidophilus.[7] Ten subjects were enrolled who presented with dental caries. At baseline participants were instructed to rinse with a saline solution and salivary samples were collected. Samples were serially diluted, plated, and incubated. After 24 hours the total number of colonies contained within 1 ml of saline was calculated. Participants were then instructed to perform oil pulling for 40 days. The salivary collection procedure was repeated and total colony counts were again calculated. Caries susceptibility was determined by the Snyder method and scored accordingly: (negative, slight, moderate, marked) depending on the length of time it took for the medium to turn from green (negative) to yellow (positive). Antibacterial activity of sesame oil against strains of S. mutans and L. acidophilus was accomplished by the disk diffusion method to assess the zone of inhibition. Results showed that 50 percent of the participants improved from marked to slight caries susceptibility and 50 percent converted from marked to moderate. Data revealed a reduction in the total colony count ranging from 10 to 33.4 percent, with an average reduction of 20 percent. Researchers suggest that sesame oil exhibited moderate inhibitory effects against S. mutans, L. acidophilus and total bacteria growth.[7]

The effect of sesame oil on S. mutans was compared to chlorhexidine (CHX) in twenty subjects (16-18 years old).[8] Participants were randomized equally to two groups: CHX control or experimental sesame oil. For two weeks, participants rinsed with either the control or experimental rinse. Samples were collected at 24 hours, 48 hours, 1 and 2 weeks. Plaque and saliva samples were obtained on Dentocult SM Strip mutans test strips (Orion Diagnostica, Espoo, Finland). Post incubation the presence of S. mutans was evaluated. Results revealed a statistically significant reduction of S. mutans in the plaque of the oil pulling group only after 1 and 2 weeks (p = 0.01 and p = 0.008 respectively); however, the CHX group showed a statistically significant decrease at all four time points (p = 0.01, p = 0.04, p = 0.005, p = 0.005 respectively). Saliva samples showed a decline in S. mutans in the oil pulling group, but results were not statistically significant. The CHX group showed a statistically significant reduction after 24 hours, 1 and 2 weeks (p=

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

This Essay is

a Student's Work

Lady Using Tablet

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Examples of our work

0.02, p = 0.02, p=0.008, respectively). The authors suggest that oil pulling cannot be recommended as an

adjunctive oral care treatment; nevertheless, sesame oil

does possess certain positive qualities for home therapy use such as low cost, non-staining, no after taste and non-allergenic.[8]

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

4

Research by Aguiar and Saliba tested the effect of an almond oil dentifrice on dental plaque and S. mutans.[9] Eighty male subjects were randomized equally to two groups: experimental (Titoil) almond oil dentifrice or a control low abrasive dentifrice. Individuals were instructed to utilize their normal oral hygiene habits during the four week study. Saliva samples and plaque scores were obtained on day 0 and

28. Tests were conducted for salivary flow rate, salivary buffer capacity, dental plaque accumulation, and total

colony count of S. mutans. Results revealed no

significant difference in salivary flow or buffer capacity between groups. Data showed a significant decrease in

CFU/ml of S. mutans in both groups (p = 0.01). There

was a significant reduction in dental plaque after tooth brushing with Titoil (p < 0.01) and no reduction with the low abrasive dentifrice. Researchers concluded that the Titoil dentifrice did not interfere with salivary flow rate or buffer capacity and had the ability to reduce dental plaque and quantities of S. mutans with less abrasion.[9]

Pretty and colleagues evaluated the effects of an olive oil formulation on S. mutans in a two-phase study.[10] The bacterial inhibition of S. mutans was accessed using test tubes treated with distilled water (control) and olive oil. Olive oil was placed in the tubes, left undisturbed for 60 minutes and the remainder was poured off without rinsing. Test tubes were inoculated with S. mutans, incubated, plated and total viable count (TVC) was calculated. Bacterial adherence was tested on microscopic slides treated with distilled water, olive oil or Airlift dentifrice. Slides were immersed in a solution containing S. mutans, incubated and TVCs were determined. Results demonstrated that the test tubes treated with olive oil had significant bacterial inhibition (p < 0.05) in contrast to the control group. Significant decreases in bacterial growth and adhesion were revealed in the olive oil group. As a result of these findings, researchers concluded that the olive oil may have the potential to inhibit plaque formation and adherence.[10]

In phase-two twenty subjects were randomized to two groups: olive oil containing dentifrice (AirLift, Biocosmetics, Madrid, Spain) and a matched control fluoride paste.[10] On day 1 plaque (PI) was scored, a baseline prophylaxis was provided and product was dispensed. On day 5, PI was again scored, digital photographs were exposed of the maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth for percent plaque index (PPI) and a cross-over prophylaxis was provided. After a 9- day washout period, participants were assigned to the

other group and the same process was repeated. Data revealed a significant difference in plaque re-growth between the two products tested (p < 0.0001). PPI data revealed a significant reduction of plaque with the olive oil dentifrice in contrast to the control (p < 0.0001).[10] Results suggest that the experimental olive oil containing dentifrice may have potential in inhibiting bacterial growth and adherence without the addition of Sodium Lauryl Sulphate (SLS), although longer term studies are needed.

The mechanism of oil pulling was studied by

Asokan et al., to evaluate the antibacterial activity of sesame oil and isolated lignans (sesamin and sesamolin)

on oral micororganisms and to determine if saponification or emulsification takes place.[11] The antibacterial activity of three sesame oil compounds were tested by agar well diffusion. The compounds were inoculated with S. mutans, Streptococcus mitis and Streptococcus viridians, plated, incubated and the zone

of inhibition was calculated. Results demonstrated that none of the three compounds tested displayed inhibitory activity against the microorganisms evaluated .[11]

In vitro saliva samples were analyzed from four healthy subjects to test for the saponification and emulsification process.[11] Saponification is a chemical reaction that occurs when oils or fats mix with an alkali. Emulsification is the process where insoluble fats are broken down into smaller particles. The titer volume of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was calculated as an indicator of saponification. Samples analyzed included sesame oil alone, oil and saliva combined, oil and saliva shaken in a flask for a period of 15 minutes and oil swished in the subjects mouth for a period of 15 minutes and expectorated into a flask. Results showed that post oil pulling some component in the saliva reacted with the sesame oil thereby increasing appreciably the amount of NaOH used up, thus verifying that saponification occurred.

After oil pulling for 30 minutes, the emulsification process was studied in salivary samples

collected every 5 minutes. Samples were observed under light microscope and Gram stained.[11] Samples were then centrifuged separating the oil, bacteria and sediment. Results determined that the emulsification process begins after five minutes of oil pulling with the size of the oil globules decreasing. As time progressed

oil globule size continued to decrease from 15 to 30 minutes and after 25 minutes only isolated bacteria were visible. Researchers suggest that emulsification may affect the adhesion of the bacteria to the surface of the tooth, remove depleted squamous cells and enhance

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

5

oral hygiene. The indication of the saponification and emulsification process found during oil pulling may facilitate the oral cleansing action. The authors concluded that more research must be conducted to confirm the antibacterial activity of sesame oil on oral microorganisms, yet they suggest that the “myth” of oil pulling as a placebo has been debunked.[11]

Overall, research exploring the antibacterial effects of oil pulling against dental caries causing bacteria is inconclusive (Table 2). Studies suggest that oil pulling exhibits an inhibitory effect on S. mutans without effecting salivary flow rate and buffering capacity. The prospect of using oil in a dentifrice to inhibit plaque formation should be further explored.

Oil Pulling and Oral Malodor:

The effects of an oil mouthrinse on halitosis

was studied in 50 participants who were randomized into two groups: experimental 2-phase oil:water mouthrinse containng cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) (n=26) or essential oil control (n=24).[12] Subjects were instructed to rinse with their assigned product for 30 seconds, morning and evening, over a six week period, while continuing with their usual oral care. Whole mouth malodor and clinical assessments (modified gingival index, plaque index and papillary bleeding index) were scored at baseline and approximately nine hours post rinsing at weeks 1, 3 and 6. Volatile sulphide compounds (VSC) were measured with a sulphide monitor and oral microbial levels were estimated through the use of the Oratest. Organoleptic measurements were assessed by two judges. At six weeks the GI scores were reduced in the oil:water CPC group by 52 percent and the essential oil control group by 49 percent. Both groups showed reduced plaque levels at week six, with a 49 percent mean reduction in the oil:water CPC group compared to 63 percent in the control group. Results suggest that mean whole mouth odors were reduced by 80, 79, and 70 percent in the experimental 2-phase oil:water CPC mouthrinse group, compared to 70, 77, and 59 percent reductions in the control group. Mean VSC decreased by 40% in the experimental oil:water CPC group, and 29% in the control group, but group differences were not significant. The authors suggest that the oil:water CPC mouthrinse was more effective than the control in terms of reducing malodor.[12]

The efficacy of an oil mouthrinse on malodor was studied by Rosenberg and colleagues to evaluate its ability to diminish malodor for time periods greater than

3 hours.[13] Sixty dental students were randomized into three groups: oil formulations containing essential oils

and cetylpyridinium chloride (TPM) (n = 22); 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate rinse (CHM) (n = 19) or placebo rinse (n = 19). Measurements were made in the late afternoon and 8-10 hours post rinsing. Subjects were informed to use their assigned rinse prior to bedtime and in the morning. Volatile sulphide levels (VSC) were measured with a portable sulphide monitor. Microbial quantities were assessed through the use of the Oratest and a single odor judge was used to provide organoleptic ratings. Both TPM and CHM showed significant decreases in VSC in contrast to the placebo group (p < 0.05). CHM showed to be more effective than the TPM rinse in all categories; however, the difference was only significant between CHM and TPM with regard to microbial activity (p < 0.05). The researchers suggest that oil:water combinations are effective against malodor and have specific advantages over alcohol and chlorhexidine based products such as lack of discoloration, no alterations in taste perception, no irritation to oral mucosa and lack of dehydration.[13]

A randomized controlled study was conducted by Asokan and colleagues in order to assess the effectiveness of oil pulling on halitosis.[14] Twenty adolescents were equally randomized into two groups: I (experimental) performed oil pulling with sesame oil for 10 to 15 minutes in the morning or II (positive control) used 0.2% chlorhexidine for one minute in the morning. Subjects were instructed to brush their teeth once a day using their normal oral hygiene regimens. A baseline prophylaxis was completed on all subjects. Five parameters were evaluated at day 0 and day 14: modified gingival index (MGI), plaque index (PI), organoleptic breath assessment with one judge (ORG

1), self-assessment of breath (ORG 2), and the BANA

test for the presence of microorganisms responsible for malodor (BANAMet LLC, USA). The BANA test strips were incubated. The presence of Treponema denticola, Porphyromonas gingivalis or Bacteroides forsythus turned the test strip blue. Results showed a statistically significant difference in MGI and PI scores (p = 0.005 and p = 0.007, respectively) in both groups. There was a decrease in the ORG 1, ORG 2 scores, and BANA test score in both groups; however, there was only a statistically significant reduction for ORG 2 scores in the experimental oil group. Data indicated that oil pulling was comparable to chlorhexidine on organisms associated with malodor. While oil pulling cannot be prescribed as an adjunctive treatment at this time, the authors suggest that it holds promise as a preventive therapy, especially in developing countries.[14]

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

6

Studies conducted to date suggest that oil pulling had a positive effect on reducing malodor without side effects such as staining, altered taste and high cost (Table 3). Currently, oil pulling cannot be recommended as an effective oral therapy to manage malodor. More research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and the exact mechanism of action, which may open more possibilities in the field of CAM.

Oil Pulling and Xerostomia:

Vegetable oil and Xerolube were compared as a

therapy for xerostomia in adults with carcinoma of the head and neck.[15] Twenty-nine participants were enrolled in a double-blinded cross-over study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups: Xerolube (artificial saliva) or vegetable oil for a two week course of treatment. After a two week washout period the groups switched products for another two weeks. Investigators utilized an Oral Assessment Guide (OAG) to objectively measure oral pathology. Participants’ subjective experiences of dryness were quantified using a 17-item Mouth Dryness Questionnaire (MDQ). The OAG was completed at enrollment and every two weeks, while the MDQ was assessed on a weekly basis. Data revealed that non-tobacco users improved significantly with the use of oil and stated a greater preference for vegetable oil. No difference was found between groups based on OAG scores (p = 0.88); MDQ scores exhibited no significant differences between the two treatments (p = 0.54). All subjects experienced dryness during washout periods and relief during treatment periods. Researchers concluded that vegetable oil can be considered as an effective and less costly alternative treatment option for patients with radiation- induced xerostomia.[15]

Studies related to oil pulling and malodor and xerostomia are summarized in Table 3. Results suggest

that oil pulling is effective in reducing oral malodor and

relieving oral dryness in head and neck cancer patients.

Discussion

Oil pulling is described as a natural alternative

to traditional oral rinsing. Despite the fact that numerous commercially available mouthrinses exist to manage a variety of oral conditions, there is a growing

sector of the population that desires natural products. Oral health care professionals are increasingly faced with questions about natural therapies; consequently, it is important to be knowledgeable about alternative and complimentary products. Furthermore, the concern that surrounds the overuse of antibiotics and antimicrobials has increased the relevance of cost effective substitutes.

Researchers have investigated the use of oil pulling on oral diseases such as plaque-induced gingivitis, dental caries, oral malodor, and xerostomia. Research suggests that oil pulling may have potential in reducing plaque and gingivitis[4-6], caries causing bacteria[7-11], malodor[12-14] and xerostomia.[15] Additionally, oil pulling may improve oral cleansing through the processes of saponification and emulsification, thus enhancing the inhibition of plaque adherence and formation.[11] Literature retrieved related to the effectiveness of oil pulling as an alternative oral care therapy is diminutive and revealed significant study limitations such as: small sample size, lack of controls, insufficient information on methods and materials, lack of blinding, and incomplete results. Consequently, oil pulling or oil swishing cannot be recommended as an effective adjunctive oral care treatment. More long term studies are needed, in larger populations, to assess the wide-ranging effects that oil pulling may have on various oral conditions. Conclusion:

Ayurvedic medicine has grown successively despite the negligible amount of scientific evidence.[1] The purpose of this paper was to establish an overview of oil pulling in reducing a variety of oral conditions

such as plaque-induced gingivitis, dental caries, malodor and xerostomia. Based on the available research, the effectiveness of oil pulling is inconclusive. Assumptions drawn from this review suggest that oil pulling has certain benefits over commercially available mouthrinses such as non-chemical, non-alcoholic, low cost, and non-staining, yet the effectiveness and mechanism of action are unclear. The qualities of oil pulling appeal to certain individuals seeking a natural alternative, on the other hand, minimal scientific evidence exists to support oil pulling therapy as an effective oral care treatment.

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

7

Table 1: Oil Pulling, Plaque and Gingivitis

Authors Study Design Sample Results

Asokan et al

2009

Amith et al

2007

Randomized two groups: oil and CHX

PI and MGI assessed at baseline and day 10

One group: oil

Patient Hygiene Performance Index (PHP) and

GI assessed at baseline, day 15, 30 and 45

N = 20 Significant reduction of pre- &

post-values of PI and MGI scores in both groups

(p < 0.001)

N = 10 Significant reduction of PHP & GI

scores from baseline to day 45 (p<0.01) for both

Busscher et al

1992

In-vitro & in vivo

Oil compared to six commercially available products: Hibident, Prodent, Meridol, Merocet, Veadent, and Listerine PI, GI and planimetry plaque (PP) indices assessed at baseline, day 14 and 20

N = 15 S. mutans and

V. alcalescens strongly inhibited

in-vitro

PI scores comparable to Merocet and Veadent

GI scores comparable to Prodent, Merocet, Veadent and Listerine

PP scores comparable to

Prodent and Merocet

Table 2: Oil Pulling and Dental Caries

Authors Study Design Sample Results

Anand et al

2008

Asokan et al

2008

Aguiar and Saliba

2004

One group: oil

Salivary samples collected at baseline & day 40

Total number of colonies calculated after 24 hours

Two groups: oil and CHX Plaque and saliva

samples collected at 24

hours, 48 hours, 1 and 2 weeks

Randomized two groups: experimental (Titoil) almond oil dentifrice and control low abrasive dentifrice

N = 10 S. mutans and L. acidophilus were

moderately sensitive to

sesame oil

Total bacteria reduction varied from 10 to 33.4%

N = 20 Oil group showed a statistically significant reduction in S. mutans after 1 & 2 weeks (p =

0.01 &

p = 0.008)

CHX group displayed significant reductions for all 4 time points (p =

0.01, p = 0.04, p = 0.005,

p = 0.005)

N = 80 No significant difference in salivary flow or buffer capacity between groups

Significant decrease in

CFU/ml of S. mutans in

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

8

Pretty et al

2003

Asokan et al

2011

Saliva samples and plaque scores obtained on day 0 and 28

Tests for salivary flow rate, salivary buffer capacity, dental plaque accumulation and total colony count of S. mutans.

In vitro & in vivo

Test tubes treated with distilled water and olive oil, inoculated with

S. mutans

Two group: olive oil dentifrice and matched control fluoride paste

Crossover design

PI scored on day 1 and PI

and PPI scored on day 5

In vitro

Three sesame oil compounds were inoculated with

S. mutans, S. mitis and S.

viridians, incubated, and zone of inhibition calculated

both groups (p = 0.01) Significant reduction in

dental plaque after

brushing with Titoil (p <

0.01) and no reduction with the low abrasive dentifrice

N = 20 Olive oil showed a significant inhibition of bacterial growth in-vitro

(p < 0.05)

Olive oil group showed a significant reduction of plaque (p < 0.0001) when compared to the control in vivo

N/A Results revealed that sesame oil displayed no

inhibitory activity against the microorganisms tested

Table 3: Oil Pulling, Oral Malodor and Xerostomia

Authors Study Design Sample Results

Asokan et al

2011

Kozlovsky et al

1996

Randomized two groups: oil and CHX

MGI, PI, ORG and BANA

test

Data collected at day 0 and 14

Two groups: oil:water CPC and essential oil control group

Malodor, MGI, PI, and BI scored at baseline and nine hours post rinsing

Data collected at weeks

1, 3 and 6

N = 20 MGI and PI scores revealed a statistically significant difference

(p = 0.005 and p =

0.007) in both groups

A decrease in ORG and BANA test scores were found in both groups

N = 50 Malodor reduced over time with 80%, 79%, and 70% decreases in

the oil:water CPC

group

Highly significant reduction over time for MGI and BI in both groups (p = 0.0001)

PI reduced in the

JIOH Volume 4; Issue 3: Sept-Dec 2012 www.ispcd.org

9

Rosenberg et al

1992

Walizer and Ephraim

1996

Three groups: oil with essential oils and cetylpyridinium chloride (TPM);

chlorhexidine gluconate

(CHM); and placebo

VSC, microbial activity, and organoleptic ratings were obtained

Measurements taken in the late afternoon and

8-10 hours post rinsing

Crossover two group: vegetable oil and Xerolube

OAG ( objective assessment of oral pathology) was completed at baseline and two weeks

MDQ (dryness) was evaluated weekly

oil:water CPC group by

49% and by 63% in the control group at week

6

N = 60 CHM was more effective than the TPM

on VSC, microbial activity, and organoleptic ratings

TPM and CHM showed significant decreases in VSC in comparison to the placebo (p < 0.05)

N = 29 No difference between groups based on OAG scores (p = .88) and MDQ scores (p = .54)