From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Dentistry (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Dentistry. If you want to participate and/or join, please visit the project page, or ask questions on the project talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antibiotic resistance[edit]

Unless there is evidence of antibiotic resistance (with a source), it should not be included in the article. -SCEhardT 02:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

this mentions tests indicating minocycline causes slight plaque bacteria resistance. (But it's a prescription product, not something found in normal mouthwashes.) -Elvey 00:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


The venerable Listerine and plain Hydrogen peroxide[1] are common examples. (but we don't want the page becoming a list of brand names...) -Elvey 00:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for a citation for hydrogen peroxide -- any bottle of it has instructions for use as a mouthwash on the label on the side. It's common knowledge, or should be. ( 23:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

The examples of active ingredients don't fit in with popular dental rinses such as Plax which contain none of the active ingredients listed. This implies more investigation is needed to find out what makes some of these ingredients "active" for use in mouthwash.AnimeJanai 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol not good in mouthwash?[edit]

I heard on a TV health program that it's recommended to use an alcohol-free mouthwash, but it didn't say why. Anyone know about this.

I've been using a mouthwash (with alcohol) for almost a year and it almost immediately improved my gums (which were sensitive and prone to bleed during flossing - possibly a mild, chronic gingivitis, though the dentist never said so). The link given in the article (Basic Info on Mouthwash - from Bent Tree Dental) suggests the mouthwashes aren't very effective - maybe this is on average, but I know personally it helped. I'd like to find more info on which mouthwash is best, though. And I don't want to kill the good bacteria in my mouth unnecessarily. --Singkong2005 talk 03:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that it can dry your mouth out, however it is a good disinfectant as singkong was saying.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
It is possible that the program believes that alcohol in mouthwash may cause oral cancer. see the 'Safety' section of the Listerine article. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:17, August 21, 2007 (UTC).


I believe that the breathalyzer works by sampling the breath for products of ethanol metabolism, not the presence of ethanol itself. I don't have time to look that up at the moment, but it's what I remember. If that is the case, you'd probably need to swallow at least a shot of mouthwash to get a reading on a breathalyzer; which might be of consequence if you're a minor, plan on driving directly after rinsing, and customarily swallow your gargle juice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Sorry, that's not correct; see our breathalyzer article. Most modern breathalyzers detect alcohol vapour concentration by infrared spectroscopy. If you think about it, a machine that detected alcohol metabolites would not be very useful, since the reading would depend mainly on how long it was since the subject's first drink, not on how drunk he may be right now. -- Securiger (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't want to drink the ones with benzoic acid and/or sodium benzoate since those react with citric acid and vitamin C to form benzene. Well, maybe if you were suffering from scurvy it would be safer to drink.AnimeJanai 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of an exaggeration. As you can see from our "Benzene in soft drinks" article,
  1. The reaction is not very favourable by basic kinetics alone, and probably requires heat or ultraviolet light to proceed at any significant rate;
  2. The worst examples found to date are really not very bad -- less harmful than driving on the freeway with the windows open; and
  3. To exceed WHO guidelines, you would need to take the worst examples of sun-exposed soft drink, and drink some 20 litres a day. This is pretty unlikely to occur with mouthwash. -- Securiger (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

SmartMouth Ad[edit]

Does anyone else find that the sentence about SmartMouth is written like an advertisement? I think it should be omitted. WillV 09:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it sounds exactly like something you'd hear in a television commercial. Jagan 18:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Also the line about TheraBreath seems like a plug. mooingpolarbear 01:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Health controversy[edit]

[2]Crest Pro-Health Mouthwash: "I Woke Up With Brown Spots On My Teeth" —Werson (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request citation for Traditional Chinese Medicine claim[edit]

The article states:

The first known reference to mouth rinsing is in the Chinese medicine, about 2700 BCE, for treatment of gingivitis.

I just added a {{fact}} tag because I strongly suspect this may be a reference to the Neijing Suwen . This is a book in traditional Chinese medicine which has traditionally been claimed to have written about 2700 BC; however, modern historical research indicates that it actually dates to somewhere between 400 BC and 260 AD -- but at any rate, thousands of years more recent than the traditional date. -- Securiger (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI.....[edit] -- (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, validation is needed-- (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can not find products mentioned here at...[edit] -- (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

but I'm sure there are the products commercially available in supermarkets-- (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide labeling info...[edit]

from this site, as I'm having difficulties of accessing this site -- (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please kindly provide lebeling info of[edit] -- (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC) -- (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

CAS No. of 玉洁纯....???[edit]

Please kindly locate it, based the info of the product label -- (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


黄色素 -- (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Info of the product standard/specification... -- (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

More debates about mouthwash and oral cancer....[edit] -- (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The website of .....[edit] needs to be verified, because

  • The company's address does not match the product of what I have

the label on the one of mine shows: 广东广州市广花四路棠新西街53号 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The major ingredients on the label: 植物护齿素,抗齿垢剂,Sodium fluoride (>0.25%) against the standard of Q/(QB)F09 04-- (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"However, one Australian researcher believes mouthwash should only be used as a short-term solution."[edit]

Can we just put the research here instead of merely suggesting that a certain Australian researcher believes that they shouldn't be used on a long-term basis? Maybe just "A recent study by a University of Queensland research team found that prolonged use was XYZ," or whatever the case may be?

Thanks - Bblakeney (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Prof McCullough didn't do any original research. He just read a few papers done by others and came to his conclusions. The main paper he uses was done by Guha et al This paper never even asked people what mouthwash they used and was conducted in Brazil, Argentina and Cuba - markets where most "well known" mouthwashes aren't even available. Guha and his team state that there results should be used with caution as it was more likely that mouthwash wash initiated after cancer had been diagnosed - to disguise the taste and smell - rather than being a cause. However, Mccullough ignores this as it doesn't fit in with his thesis. (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Colgate Alcohol Free Mouthwash.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Colgate Alcohol Free Mouthwash.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this part needs to add in the note by canceruk that there have only been a few small studies on this topic. So the stated assertion that the link between alcohol-containing mouthwash is not proven is correct, it is also the case that there is insufficient evidence to confirm there is no link. This needs to be included for the sake of neutrality and more importantly giving a full and true picture of the situation. Don't feel sufficiently qualified to do this myself, but hope someone more knowledgable than I has a look at this comment and makes an appropriate modification. Thanks. SGS — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

This link (reference 4 at the time I'm writing this) is broken. --N-k (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

UK situation[edit]

Alcohol containing mouthwash products have disappeared from all major supermarkets and pharmacies in the last few months. Is this as commercial descision? or has there been a change in the law ? The change is so significant as to be worth comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talkcontribs) 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

commonly used active ingredients citations[edit]

Re: "citation needed" on various active ingredients in mouthwash; I've seen most of them in the active ingredients lists for various mouthwash products at the grocery store recently; not sure if "ingredient list for Xxxx brand mouthwash" is an acceptable citation, though, nor how to cite it ---- sep

A primary source is better than nothing. It ought to be fine for something as uncontroversial as that. —rybec 00:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol an active ingredient?[edit]

Currently the article lists alcohol as an active ingredient. However most alcohol-containing mouthwashes in the US currently specifically list alcohol as an inactive ingredient. It appears this has not always been the case. See: [3] Dforest (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Definition too narrow[edit]

Mouthwash or mouth rinse is a method of administering any liquid medication. It does not have to be an antiseptic, although most mouthwashes for sale in shops are. Lesion (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

For example, you can prescribe benzydamine mouthwash, which is analgesic, not antiseptic. Lesion (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked in some online dictionaries and some indeed used wording like "usually an antispectic", e.g. [4]. I am re-working the lead accordingly. Lesion (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Oil pulling[edit]

The content about this topic is currently split over these 2 articles. Oil pulling is an oil mouthwash, it is easily included within the scope of the other page, and there is not much left to merge here since much was recently removed Lesion (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - this article is about mouthwash in general. "Oil pulling" is an article about a particular alternative medicine practice, with all sorts of alt-med claims about it. It's a type of mouthwash, but the newspaper articles on "oil pulling" are about the alt-med practice and its esoteric claims, rather than about an everyday thing like Listerine. Much as it wouldn't make sense to merge ear candling into candle, or homeopathy into water - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Support - Lesion's convinced me. We definitely need to mention "oil pulling" specifically in its paragraph for the redirect, however - it gets many thousands of hits, more on days with media coverage - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Those are not analogous situations, if you read this article you will see. Merge is correct, indeed wikipedia's content on "oil pulling" is already dealt with in both places. There is not enough content left on oil pulling to justify a stand alone article. It should be mentioned in terms of oil mouthwashes here, and also in the society and culture section. Lesion (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As per my comments on Talk:Oil pulling.
  • Support. Oil pulling does not merit a stand alone article and is adequately covered in Mouthwash as it is.Ochiwar (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The oil-pulling article is basically a stub. That in itself is my rationale for inclusion. I also fear -- with the growing popularity of CAM -- that leaving it a separate page will see further edits made espousing magical thinking. — VoxLuna  orbitland   08:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mouthwash is used to kill germs in the mouth, fight plaque and maintain healthy teeth and gums. Oil Pulling is used as part of a routine to cleanse the body of toxins and impurities. Oil in the mouth attracts the fat molecules in the body (like attracts like), and the toxins stored in them, the oil absorbs them and the toxins are expelled from the body, with the oil, through the mouth. They goal of the two enterprises is not the same and therefore I do no think the topics should be merged into the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombase (talkcontribs) 00:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Except we don't have any sources which actually validate any of those claims for oil-based products and practices, so we can't discuss them at length. And you are actually incorrect that there is no overlap; "fights plaque and maintain healthy teeth and gums" is actually one of the claims made for oil pulling. An unproven claim that is --how do I put this as neutrally as possible under the circumstances-- is unlikely to have a complex and empirically verifiable bio-physical mechanism proposed for it that is supported by a source deemed reliable in the sense of our policies. It seems that you might be a believer in the phenomenon, so I'll add the caveats that A) Should such research (and reporting on said research) actually materialize, that would be a different story, but it can't be just any source and B) those dubious of its usefulness also can't say "It's an ineffective mouthwash but has persisted as a phenomena due to claims of dubious (or at least unverified) scientific veracity" unless/until we find a reliable source connecting those two factors or it will be synthesis. What should be noted is that its proposed mechanism has not in any way been validated and has been questioned by biomedical researchers (our sources do support that). Other than that, we can't discuss the proposed mechanisms at length because our sources haven't, so that leaves only the broad intent, which has sufficient cross-over with other "gargling" procedures that this surely the appropriate article to place the content that can't at present be grown beyond a stub, based on our sources. Snow (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Update-- I merged the content on oil pulling here, into the subsection "Essential oils". I don't particularly mind if oil pulling stays a stand alone article, it is just that currently it is not very long, and there are very few reliable sources to build it. The practice of holding, washing or gargling an essential oil in the mouth definitely falls within dictionary definition of mouthwash, which refers to any liquid which is used in the mouth and intended to have some effect on health, usually anti-septic action on oral bacteria. Claims of some editors above that oil pulling is not mouthwashing are nonsensical, especially since we have highly reliable sources which describe essential oil mouthwashes as just that (see the cochrane review about mouthwashes for halitosis on this article). Lesion (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Mouthwash is a pure Oral hygiene activity, whereas Oil Pulling comes under lifestyle/cultural trends/fads which topics cannot be covered by Mouth wash. I suggest, that if at all it is decided to delete this topic, then it should be merged under Detoxification (Alternative Medicine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J mareeswaran (talkcontribs) 11:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
See my reply on talk:Oil pulling, mouthwash is not just an oral hygiene activity. Content on oil pulling at detoxification (alternative medicine) is valid suggestion, but should also remain some info here about essential oil mouthwashes. Lesion 12:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Gah, regret splitting this discussion over 2 pages. The AfD has also been procedurally closed fyi.

Article is very bad[edit]

I have re-organized the article a bit, and merged gargling (so little left after unsupported content was removed it was basically a few lines to merge here) and magic mouthwash. I have sorted a few small problems here and there but this article has significant problems. I direct editors' attention to WP:MEDRS, a guideline to help identify suitable sources for Wikipedia's medical content. Original research studies are not appropriate. We should use secondary sources (e.g. review papers in reputable peer review journals), or tertiary sources (e.g. mainstream medical textbooks). Lesion (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Separated Edible/Vegetable Oils and Essential Oils[edit]

As per references given, long term analysis of wide variety of studies, have clearly established the efficacy of Essential oils. Whereas, there has been only limited studies on Edible oils and they are not conclusive. So please do not put both of them under the same sub-heading, as that would be extremely misleading.J mareeswaran (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Mouthwashing after using fluoride toothpaste?[edit]

This is wrong. For the same reason people should "spit don't rinse" [5] after toothbrushing, mouthwashing should not be done after toothbrushing so as to not remove the fluoride residue on the teeth. Lesion (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol (erroneous citation)[edit]

The American Dental Association asserts that regular brushing and proper flossing are enough in most cases, although they approve many 
mouthwashes that do not contain ethanol (in addition to regular dental check-ups).[11]

No part of the sentence is backed by the source. Nowhere in it is stated that the ADA only approves mouthwashes without ethanol, that brushing and flossing were enough or something about dental check-ups. Actually I don't think it's a good source at all. --StYxXx (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a nested link inside that link that has these following statements (by ADA)
it (Mouthwash) is not a substitute for brushing or flossing ... Your dentist may recommend, using a mouthrinse with fluoride or antimicrobial agents as part of your daily oral hygiene routine ...
I couldn't find direct links for the non-alcoholic mouthwash approval claim. But it can be inferred by the following statement by ADA (advise against using edible oils as Mouthwash) [1]
If individuals need more help to reduce gingivitis, they can add an ADA-Accepted mouthrinse shown to reduce plaque and gingivitis ... these essential oils are present in small amounts in an aqueous solution ...
Implication of above statement (that ADA approve of aqueous-base mouthwash and no explicit approval of alcoholic mouthwashes) can be interpreted as ADA approves non-alcoholic mouthwashes? J mareeswaran (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


I reorganized the article, since there was duplication (e.g. between "flavoring agents" and "xylitol"). The ingredients section is really ugly at the moment, but hopefully that will improve. I didn't have enough time to go through each ingredient and look for reliable sources, so I just kept everything, but it definitely needs some WP:UNDUE-style editing.

The old sections had two distinctions, custom/common and active/inactive. The active/inactive distinction is pretty much meaningless, see FDA's FAQ ("Alcohol is a good example of an ingredient that may be considered either active or inactive depending on the product formulation"); basically the active ingredients are whatever the manufacturer decides to market the product as, and all the others (regardless of efficacy) end up inactive. The custom distinction is reasonable on first glance, and there is the discussion of "magic mouthwashes" which could be extended to talk about bespoke medicine in general, but that's more a history/usage thing than something relevant to the ingredients. An ingredient can be used in both common and custom mouthwashes so again it's not very good for organizing the article. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be a summary/separate section on Type of ingredients, for ex: anti-septic or anti-malodor etc. Will try & see if that can be separated out from the ingredients list. J mareeswaran (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. It is more reader friendly as a simple list. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)