Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Electrolyzed water for the microbiologic control in the pandemic dental setting: a systematic review

BMC Oral Health volume 22, Article number: 579 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Electrolyzed water has brought recent attention due to its antimicrobial properties. Indeed, electrolyzed water has been proposed to sterilize dental materials and instruments without compromising their structural integrity. In addition, electrolyzed water has been proposed as a mouthwash to control bacterial and viral oral infections without detrimental effects on the oral mucosa. However, no current consensus or evidence synthesis could indicate its potentially favorable use in the dental setting, particularly during the COVID-19 context. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to elucidate whether electrolyzed water could improve microbiologic control in the COVID-19 pandemic dental setting.

Methods

MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane’s CENTRAL, Scopus, LILACS, and Web of Science databases were searched up to September 2021 to identify experimental studies utilizing electrolyzed water for eliminating microorganisms in a dental setting. Besides, a manual and a grey literature search were performed. The data selection and extraction were performed individually and in duplicate. The Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed with the Nature Publication Quality Improvement Project (NPQIP) score sheet. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO CRD42020206986.

Results

From a total of 299 articles, 63 studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies assessed several types of electrolyzed waters, which showed a high disinfection potential when used to deal with different oral conditions. Electrolyzed water demonstrated a broad antimicrobial spectrum and was highly efficient in the dental office disinfection against viruses, fungi, and bacteria, being compatible with most dental materials. In addition, electrolyzed water could protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and contamination in the dental office. Regarding the RoB, only 35.18% of entries were answered as ‘Yes’, thus achieving less than half of the reporting sheet.

Conclusion

Electrolyzed water effectively disinfects contaminated surfaces, dental materials, and equipment. Therefore, their use is recommendable in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic dental setting.

Peer Review reports

Background

The worldwide impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is affecting a still increasing number of people daily. The uncontrolled widespread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection led to the global expansion of COVID-19 in over 200 countries, with stunning contagion and mortality rates [1]. Recently, the coronavirus’ genomic mutations and resulting variants have increased its virulence and infective potential, facilitating zoonotic and human transmission [2, 3].

The main transmission route of the virus is via the release of saliva droplets or aerosols by COVID-19-infected people by coughing, sneezing, talking, or touching contaminated surfaces without adequately washing hands. Accordingly, significant loads of SARS-CoV-2 RNA have been detected in saliva [4], salivary glands [5], and oral epithelial cells [6]. Indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 virus can colonize the oral mucosa by the differential expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2), the SARS-CoV-2 main receptor and cell-invasion route [6]. Therefore, considering the importance of the oral cavity as the primary source of viral transmission of COVID-19, the conditions of clinical dental care should be a focus of attention. Certainly, the length of dental procedures and the proximity between patients and operators within the dental setting put dentists and their patients at high risk of COVID-19 [7]. Moreover, the constant use of water-cooled high-speed rotary hand-pieces or ultrasonic scalers during most dental procedures generates and further spreads virion-loaded aerosols [8, 9]. Indeed, these aerosols can contaminate surfaces, dental instruments, impression casts, and dental unit-waterlines, among others, increasing the risk for cross-contamination [8, 9].

Several disinfectants and cleaning solutions are currently available for microbiologic control at the dental office, including viruses. However, most of them are not entirely innocuous for humans, dental instruments, materials, and the environment and are not fully effective in controlling the virus dissemination [10, 11]. From this basis, the use of electrolyzed water has brought recent attention due to its bactericidal and virucidal activities and less detrimental effects on biological tissues, skin, and mucosa [12]. Its antimicrobial properties have allowed it to sterilize instruments, dentures, and even impressions, without compromising their delicate structural integrity [13]. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized that its use as a mouthwash could be innocuous for the oral mucosa [14]. Thus, it could effectively reduce the SARS-CoV-2 viral load in patients’ saliva before aerosol-generating procedures. However, nowadays, there is no current consensus or evidence synthesis that could indicate its potentially favorable use in the dental setting. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to elucidate whether electrolyzed water could improve the microbiologic control in the COVID-19 pandemic dental setting.

Methods

Study protocol

The protocol for this systematic review was constructed in agreement with the recommendations made by the PRISMA 2020 checklist [15] and following the quality standards recommended by the AMSTAR-2 critical appraisal tool [16]. All the authors revised, discussed, and approved the protocol for the data selection and extraction, risk of bias assessment, and data analysis a priori. Protocol registration can be found at PROSPERO CRD42020206986.

Eligibility criteria

To answer the research question: Does electrolyzed water improve microbiologic control in the dental setting? Publications that met the following PICO format and inclusion criteria were included.

  • P: Oral microorganisms including viruses, bacteria, and fungi cultivated in vitro, inoculated in an animal model, or sampled from the oral cavity.

  • I: Electrolyzed water produced by electrolysis of regular or distilled water with any concentration of sodium chloride.

  • C: No intervention or other disinfectant solution used in the dental setting.

  • O: Colonies count, plaque reduction, infection potential, and viral RNA copies.

Due to the relative novelty of the revised topic in the dental setting, randomized clinical trials were scarce. Thus, all experimental studies were considered, including randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, animal studies with a control group, and in vitro studies. Case reports, editorial letters, and incomplete studies were excluded. Language, year, and publication status were not considered as exclusion criteria. The search retrieved articles published up to September 2021, and eligible publications in languages different from English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese were translated.

Information sources and search strategy

One author (EAC) performed the electronic search in MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane’s CENTRAL, and LILACS databases, using individually adapted search strategies (Supplementary Material 1). In addition, OpenGrey and PQDT-ProQuest databases were searched for grey literature. Moreover, a manual search including recently published records from 2021 was performed in the journals from which initial studies were selected: International Journal of Oral Biology, International Journal of Clinical Preventive Dentistry, Journal of the Korean Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science, Oral Health and Dental Management, Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, Annals of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, International Journal of Applied Pharmaceutics, Brazilian Dental Journal, International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences, Journal of Oral Research and Review, Biomedical Research, Journal of Oral Science, The Journal of the Japanese Society for Dental Materials and Devices, BioMed Research International, Jundishapur Journal of Microbiology, Dental Materials Journal, Journal of the Japanese Prosthodontics Society, The Japanese Journal of Conservative Dentistry, The Journal of the Kyushu Dental Society, Japanese Journal of Oral Biology, Journal of Dental Health, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Virological Methods, Japanese Journal of Dental Materials, and Journal of Microbiology. Besides, contact with corresponding authors was made via e-mail if some potentially eligible detected article was unavailable. Finally, the references of the retrieved studies were also revised for additional studies.

Data selection and extraction

Two authors (AC and VC) performed the data selection and extraction independently. After duplicate removal, titles and abstracts were assessed for their potential inclusion. Then, full-text articles were analyzed against the inclusion criteria for their final inclusion. When disagreements occurred, inclusion was discussed with a third author (RV) until consensus. Excluded articles and their respective reasons for exclusion were recorded (Supplementary Material 2). Afterward, the following data were extracted from the included studies: Authors, year, and study setting (for reference), type of study, microorganism (source, concentration, and inoculation via), type of hydrolyzed water (concentration and preparation), duration of intervention, dental setting and comparator, effect over microorganism (time frame), and funding source, if available. Disagreements were solved by discussion, and all the extracted data were further revised by two authors (EAC and RV) to ensure the extraction of all the relevant data. In the case of missing data, the manuscripts’ corresponding authors were asked for additional information.

Outcome measures

In order to evaluate the potential use of electrolyzed water for microbiologic control in the dental setting, the primary outcome measure was the inhibition of bacterial growth by means of remaining colony forming units (CFU) or viral replication by means of remaining viral RNA copies.

Risk of bias assessment

The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (AC and EAC), previously calibrated in RoB assessment rounds, and the disagreements were resolved by consensus. The in vivo and in vitro studies were assessed using a modified version of the Nature Publication Quality Improvement Project (NPQIP) score sheet.

Data synthesis

Due to the substantial heterogeneity between studies, a qualitative synthesis of results was performed.

Results

Data selection

The initial electronic search yielded 299 articles across the revised databases. Additionally, the complementary manual search resulted in 32 additional records. After duplicates were removed, 290 articles were screened. Then, revising titles and abstracts excluded 218 records, resulting in the assessment of 72 potential articles, including nine articles translated from Japanese, Korean, and Turkish. Finally, the full-text assessment resulted in the inclusion of 63 studies (Fig. 1). The main reasons for excluding full-text articles were: not being primary studies, using another disinfectant different from electrolyzed water, being incomplete, not being executed in the dental setting, and not evaluating oral microorganisms. All the included studies were in vitro except for five studies [17,18,19,20,21] which were randomized clinical trials.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA Flow chart of data selection process

Full size image

Disinfection potential of electrolyzed water for oral diseases

Different varieties of electrolyzed water have been proven to be potentially helpful in treating oral diseases. In the case of caries, patients rinsing with ‘electrolyzed hydrogen water’ showed significantly diminished counts of Streptococci CFU in comparison with rinsing with tap water, leading to the authors’ concluding that oral rinse with electrolyzed water could be supportive in diminishing the levels of caries-associated bacteria such as Streptococcus mutants [17]. Otherwise, in periodontal diseases, electrolyzed water has been tested in three randomized clinical trials. For instance, in periodontally healthy individuals, irrigation with ‘aqua oxidizing water’ after discontinuing oral hygiene was effective for plaque control and preventing gingivitis [19]. Likewise, the use of ‘acid water’ rinse inhibited the development and formation of bacterial plaque, similar to chlorhexidine in human dentine [21]. Apart from that, ‘superoxidized water’ irrigation along with scaling and root planning was effective for treating periodontitis-affected patients, showing diminished probing pocket depth and gingival bleeding 30 days after treatment [20].

Apart from that, the canal-disinfection potential of electrolyzed water has particularly been considered in endodontics. Indeed, a randomized clinical trial showed no differences between the use of ‘oxidative potential water’ in comparison with 1% NaOCl, in terms of their effectiveness in reducing the bacterial load in canals of necrotic pulpectomized primary teeth [18]. In particular, the antimicrobial properties of electrolyzed water against Enterococcus faecalis in canals of extracted teeth have been tested in seven studies [20, 22,23,24,25,26,27], being effective in reducing E. faecalis levels as an endodontic irrigant, in a similar manner to sodium hypochlorite solution (Table 1).

Table 1 Electrolyzed water used in the human dental setting
Full size table

Innocuity of electrolyzed water in vitro and for human application

The innocuity of electrolyzed water has been tested using in vitro models and randomized clinical trials [17,18,19,20,21]. Indeed, daily oral rinse, irrigation, or application of ‘electrolyzed water’ reported no adverse effects on patients [17,18,19,20,21], while having an outstanding plaque-controlling effect. Besides, canal irrigation of necrotic primary teeth on child patients with ‘oxidative potential water’ reported no side effects, thus considering it a harmless alternative for irrigation after pulpectomies [18]. Moreover, electrolyzed water was not cytotoxic to cultured human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells [28].

Oral microorganisms growth inhibition by electrolyzed waters

The antibacterial properties of electrolyzed water were tested in 32 in vitro studies [17, 22, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] (Table 2). In the case of caries-associated bacteria, the exposition to electrolyzed water was effective in diminishing bacteria CFU counts, inhibiting colonies or biofilm formation, mostly by S. mutants and, in some cases, S. sobrinus, S. mitis, S. sanguis, and S. salivarius [29, 38, 43, 45, 50, 51, 54, 58]. Moreover, the inoculation of electrolyzed water was able to inhibit periodontopathogens such as Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, and Treponema denticola [22, 29, 32, 35, 38, 41, 42, 45, 49, 50, 54, 56], by significantly reducing the percentage of viable bacteria or their CFU number after treatment. In addition, pathogens commonly found on infected canals, such as E. faecalis and Porphyromonas endodontalis, were also sensitive to electrolyzed water, showing significantly reduced CFU numbers and viability in a time-dependent manner [29, 31, 37, 39, 43, 52, 55]. Additionally, electrolyzed water also showed antifungal activity by inhibiting the growth and diminishing the mean CFU counts of Candida albicans cultures in nine studies [29, 31, 34,35,36, 47, 52, 59, 60] (Table 3). Last but not least, electrolyzed water showed viricidal effects against human hepatitis B virus, human immunodeficiency virus, poliovirus type 1, and herpes simplex virus type 1, by reducing their infectivity potential in a time-dependent manner [47, 61, 62] (Table 4).

Table 2 Electrolyzed water used against cultured oral bacteria
Full size table
Table 3 Electrolyzed water used against oral fungi
Full size table
Table 4 Electrolyzed water used against viruses
Full size table

Electrolyzed water disinfection effectivity in the dental office setting

A total of fifteen studies have assessed the antimicrobial properties of electrolyzed water in the dental office (Table 5), using it to decontaminate dental units’ waterlines [63,64,65,66,67], impression materials [68,69,70], resin-based prostheses [33, 71, 72], titanium-based surfaces like dental implants [28], toothbrushes [22], and other surfaces or medical devices [30, 48]. Overall, studies have shown that the decontamination of dental units’ waterlines with electrolyzed water, including directly connected high-speed and low-speed hand-pieces and ultrasonic scalers [63,64,65,66,67], effectively inhibits bacteria and fungi growth in the long term [63,64,65,66,67]. Indeed, electrolyzed water showed up to 98.1% microbial killing rate for up to 6 weeks [64, 69] and similar antimicrobial activity to glutaraldehyde [33, 72]. In general terms, different kinds of electrolyzed waters have been effective in disinfecting surfaces infected with microorganisms such as Streptococcus gordonii [28], Pseudomona aeruginosa [30], Staphylococcus spp, Bacillus subtilis, and Staphylococcus aureus [69, 71].

Table 5 Electrolyzed water use in the dental office
Full size table

Compatibility of electrolyzed waters for dental materials

Some studies tested the disinfection potential and material compatibility of electrolyzed water with dental materials [33, 68, 70,71,72]. For example, electrolyzed water effectively disinfected impressions made from polyvinyl siloxane [68] and alginate [69, 70] without compromising their dimensional integrity or surface accuracy. Apart from that, the antimicrobial use of electrolyzed water was also demonstrated to be harmless to acrylic resin dentures contaminated with bacteria such as S. aureus [33, 71, 72].

Risk of bias assessment

The RoB and quality of reporting assessment using the NPQIP tool led to a total of 756 entries (Additional file 3). Of them, only 35.18% were answered as ‘Yes’, while 48.15% as ‘No’ and the rest were marked as ‘NA’ (Not applicable). The tool sections ‘Animal information’ and ‘Reagents (in vivo)’ did not apply to the included studies.

All of the studies scored ‘Yes’ in items #1 and #2 regarding sample size and collection specification. Items #3 and #4 regarding experiment replications and the use of uncommon statistical tests showed similar results with 52.46 and 45.90% of positive answers, respectively. Only one study was rated as ‘Yes’ in item #5, regarding the specification of using one or two-sided t or z tests. Most articles answered items #6, #7, and #8, about using P values and estimates as medians or averages, as ‘Yes’, being 59.02, 68.85, and 55.73%, respectively. However, items #9-#12 (62.29, 75.40, 63.93, and 50%) mainly were answered as ‘No’ due to articles not reporting the definition of error bars, not assessing data normality, not calculating variation within groups and not analyzing the variance. In addition, most articles did not specify how the sample size was obtained, resulting in items #13 and #14 with 85.24 and 81.96% of ‘No’ answers. In this sense, items #15, #16, and #17, regarding exclusions, items #18 and #19, regarding randomization, and items #20 and #21, regarding blinding, were mostly (> 80%) answered as ‘No’. Apart from that, most articles specified if their antibodies were profiled and the cell lines used, being items #22 and #23 answered as ‘Yes’ in 83.61 and 65.57%, respectively. Although, no articles specified if the cell lines were authenticated or if they were tested for mycoplasma contamination in items #24 and #25. Finally, most articles answered ‘Not applicable’ for the ‘Human studies’ items #26–30. In this sense, the few human studies included did identify a committee approving the protocol and the use of informed consent, but did not have clinical trial registration numbers nor used the CONSORT checklist.

Discussion

Electrolyzed water is obtained from the combination of tap water with a sodium chloride-derived solution passed through an electrolysis chamber, and it has been proven to be a cheap and environment-friendly alternative to disinfect different types of contaminated surfaces and inert materials due to its vast microbicide properties [53]. In the present revision, the included studies assessed several types of differently obtained electrolyzed waters, which showed a high disinfection potential when used to deal with different oral conditions, including caries, periodontal disease, and root canal system infection. These beneficial effects were achieved by reducing the amount of CFUs of disease-specific bacteria, which was higher than tap water or saline solution, reaching a disinfection potential similar to that described for chlorhexidine or sodium hypochlorite solution.

Different antimicrobial agents have been tested to reduce the cross-infection potential during dental procedures, but many of them are not completely innocuous for dental materials or safe for oral tissues [68]. In the herein included studies, electrolyzed water was demonstrated to have a broad antimicrobial spectrum and to be highly efficient in the dental office disinfection against viruses, fungi, and bacteria, being also compatible with most dental impression materials, gypsum, resin-derived materials, and dental implants. Moreover, different kinds of electrolyzed waters have been put into dental unit water lines connected to high-speed and low-speed hand-pieces, ultrasonic cavitrons, and air sprays, showing an effective capacity to control microorganisms and being harmless to oral tissues. In fact, six of the included studies showed that electrolyzed water does not produce adverse effects in patients when used as a daily mouth rinse, nor produce cytotoxic effects on cultured human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells [17,18,19,20,21, 28].

These critical findings must be considered in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic since dentistry has become one of the health fields with the most significant impact on its transmissibility [73]. Indeed, the main route of airborne transmission and the consequent possible viral dissemination during dental practice originated mainly through the aerosolization produced by high-speed hand-pieces and ultrasonic scalers [63,64,65,66,67]. In this context, electrolyzed water has also shown to have great microbicidal potential against viruses that are easily transmitted during dental care, such as the human hepatitis B virus, human immunodeficiency virus, herpes simplex virus type 1, and poliovirus type 1, in a time-dependent manner [47, 61, 62]. In addition, the effectivity of electrolyzed water against the SARS-CoV-2 virus has also been tested in vitro, showing promising results without showing cytotoxicity [32]. Indeed, the SARS-CoV-2 virus exposed to undiluted electrolyzed water for 60 seconds significantly reduced its infectivity and replication [32]. Furthermore, oral and nasal rinse with electrolyzed water has also been shown to be protective against COVID-19 infection in a clinical trial [74]. In this study, only 1.2% of the study group that rinsed with electrolyzed water reported COVID-19 incidence, while 12.7% of the control group that did not rinse with electrolyzed water became infected [74]. The effectivity of electrolyzed water has also been proved against enveloped and non-enveloped viruses by breaking chemical bonds and changing surface proteins, mainly through its redox potential, compromising the viral envelope, viral enzymes, and viral nucleic acids [61]. Therefore, among other viruses, electrolyzed water could protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection and contamination in the dental office.

Among the different electrolyzed waters, the most frequently assessed were ‘electrolyzed hydrogen water’, ‘aqua oxidizing water’, ‘acid water’, ‘superoxidized water’, and ‘oxidative potential water’, with subtle variations of chlorine concentration and pH among them [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. However, some cases, including ‘strong acid water’ and ‘weak acid water’, could corrode metal surfaces and instruments when prepared with high sodium chloride concentrations [61]. Moreover, electrolysis is capable of sterilizing tap water and reactivating the free chlorine in it, making it able to disinfect surfaces and water deposits against both oral and nosocomial infection-causing bacteria, without evidence of corrosion [75].

In this context, mouthwashes are commonly used as a daily antiseptic complement to toothbrushing for the maintenance of oral hygiene; however, there is still no clear evidence of their long-term effects on the health-compatible oral microbiota [19, 21]. In this sense, electrolyzed water has also been proven to be safe and significantly inhibit the growth of Streptococci in saliva, compared with saliva from patients that rinsed with tap water [76]. Indeed, the common active components of electrolyzed water, independent of their varying pH, chlorine, hypochlorous acid, and hypochlorous acidic ion, are thought to be responsible for electrolyzed water’s antibacterial capacities [29].

On the other hand, fungicides are not commonly used for disinfecting the dental office, but when used, they tend to leave residues and are not entirely environmentally friendly. Likewise, in the analyzed studies, the antifungal activity of electrolyzed water was evaluated as an alternative. Nine studies showed that electrolyzed effectively inhibited the growth of C. albicans [29, 31, 34,35,36, 47, 52, 59, 60]. In this context, electrolyzed water antifungal activity relies mainly on OH, which causes structural damage to cell walls, leading to the leakage of K+ and Mg+ 2 ions and consequently compromising fungi cell function. Besides, its effectivity may also depend on its available chlorine concentrations and the thickness of the fungi cell wall [77]. Even so, other disinfectants, such as sodium hypochlorite, are more time-efficient than electrolyzed water [29].

One of the limitations of our study was the substantial methodological heterogeneity found among the included studies, which impeded the adequate pooling of results and the performance of a meta-analysis. The most common sources of heterogeneity were the different ways to prepare electrolyzed water, the diversity of the assessed pathogens, and the different exposure times. In addition, sample sizes and the adequacy of their calculation were not considered during data extraction and drawing conclusions. Indeed, normality of data distribution, sample size calculation, and error bars definition were frequently unreported. Moreover, most of the included studies had an in vitro design, which rarely reported the randomization of interventions or the blinded assessment of results, thus limiting precise clinical conclusions. However, our vast search strategy and identification of articles written in languages different from English make our study publication bias low; therefore, probably capturing most of the state-of-the-art literature regarding the use of electrolyzed water for microbial control in the dental setting. Besides, our assessment of the risk of bias among the studies suggests a cautious interpretation of the included study results.

Different concentrations of free chlorine, ranging from 4 to 88 ppm, were used for fabricating electrolyzed waters for diverse applications, being 50 ppm the most used concentration [17–27]. For the disinfection of the dental office and its appliances, the most effective electrolyzed waters were ‘Poseidon-S’ – pH 7.2 ± 0.1, ORP 793.7 ± 9.3 mV, chlorine 21 ± 1 ppm – [64] and ‘Ultrasonically nebulized electrolyzed oxidizing water’ – pH 2.5, ORP 1150 mV, chlorine 50 ppm – [69]. Moreover, regarding its direct use as a mouthwash, ‘Electrolyzed hydrogen water’ – ORP − 600 mV ~ − 700 mV, hydrogen 1.5 ppm –[17] and ‘Acid water’ – pH < 2.7, ORP > 1100 mV – [21] were the most effective in reducing caries associated bacteria and controing gingivitis, respectively. However, special storage and maintenance conditions are needed to ensure microbicidal properties. In fact, storage over 40 days and daylight exposure might affect electrolyzed water disinfecting potential or even inactivate it [33, 55]. Regardless of these suggestions, it is imperative to carry out new and more extensive clinical trials in different scenarios to ratify the electrolyzed water clinical implementation. However, substantial evidence points out that its use for disinfecting the whole dental office equipment and materials is effective, eco-friendly, and most important, safe.

Conclusion

The antimicrobial properties of electrolyzed water are diverse and their effective ability to disinfect contaminated surfaces, dental materials, and equipment make their use recommendable in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic dental setting.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Malik JA, Ahmed S, Mir A, Shinde M, Bender O, Alshammari F, Ansari M, Anwar S. The SARS-CoV-2 mutations versus vaccine effectiveness: new opportunities to new challenges. J Infect Public Health. 2022;15:228–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amoutzias GD, Nikolaidis M, Tryfonopoulou E, Chlichlia K, Markoulatos P, Oliver SG. The remarkable evolutionary plasticity of coronaviruses by mutation and recombination: insights for the COVID-19 pandemic and the future evolutionary paths of SARS-CoV-2. Viruses. 2022;14:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xu R, Cui B, Duan X, Zhang P, Zhou X, Yuan Q. Saliva: potential diagnostic value and transmission of 2019-nCoV. Int J Oral Sci. 2020;12:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wyllie AL, Fournier J, Casanovas-Massana A, Campbell M, Tokuyama M, Vijayakumar P, et al. Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab specimens for detection of SARS-CoV-2. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1283-6.

  5. Xu J, Li Y, Gan F, Du Y, Yao Y. Salivary glands: potential reservoirs for COVID-19 asymptomatic infection. J Dent Res. 2020;99:989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu H, Zhong L, Deng J, Peng J, Dan H, Zeng X, Li T, Chen Q. High expression of ACE2 receptor of 2019-nCoV on the epithelial cells of oral mucosa. Int J Oral Sci. 2020;12:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jiang CM, Duangthip D, Auychai P, Chiba M, Folayan MO, Hamama HHH, Kamnoedboon P, Lyons K, Matangkasombut O, Mathu-Muju KR, et al. Changes in oral health policies and guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Oral Health. 2021;2:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Huynh E, Olinger A, Woolley D, Kohli RK, Choczynski JM, Davies JF, Lin K, Marr LC, Davis RD. Evidence for a semisolid phase state of aerosols and droplets relevant to the airborne and surface survival of pathogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022;119:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cousins M, Patel K, Araujo M, Beaton L, Scott C, Stirling D, Young L, Knights J. A qualitative analysis of dental professionals’ beliefs and concerns about providing aerosol generating procedures early in the COVID-19 pandemic. BDJ Open. 2022;8:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lesho E, Newhart D, Reno L, Sleeper S, Nary J, Gutowski J, Yu S, Walsh E, Vargas R, Riedy D, et al. Effectiveness of various cleaning strategies in acute and long-term care facilities during novel corona virus 2019 disease pandemic-related staff shortages. PLoS One. 2022;17:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Benahmed AG, Gasmi A, Anzar W, Arshad M, Bjørklund G. Improving safety in dental practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Technol. 2022;12:205–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yan P, Daliri EB-M, Oh D-H. New clinical applications of electrolyzed water: a review. Microorganisms. 2021;9:1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dong H, Nagamatsu Y, Chen K-K, Tajima K, Kakigawa H, Shi S, Kozono Y. Corrosion behavior of dental alloys in various types of electrolyzed water. Dent Mater. 2003;22:482–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng X, Tian Y, Zhao C, Qu T, Ma C, Liu X, Yu Q. Bactericidal effect of strong acid electrolyzed water against flow enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod. 2016;42:1120–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shea B, Reeves B, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kim J, Lee H-J, Hong S-H. Inhibition of streptococcal biofilm by hydrogen water. J Dent. 2017;58:34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Valdez-Gonzalez C, Mendez-Gonzalez V, Torre-Delgadillo G, Flores-Reyes H, Gaitan-Fonseca C, Pozos-Guillen A. Effectiveness of oxidative potential water as an irrigant in pulpectomized primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;37:31–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ezure M, Kamoi H, Osanai A, Inada M, Ogawa T, Sato SOH, Kamoi K. The effect of oral hygiene with water-spray-type oral washing unit and aqua oxidizing water on experimental gingivitis. J Oral Therapeut Pharmacol. 1996;15:74–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chaudhari D, Mahale S, Kadam P, Shimpi S, Kalekar L, Sonar P. A comparative clinicomicrobiological study to evaluate efficacy of superoxide solution with povidone-iodine irrigation in chronic periodontitis patients. J Oral Res Rev. 2019;11:58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ito K, Nishida T, Murai S. Inhibitory effects of acid water prepared by an electrolysis apparatus on early plaque formation on specimens of dentine. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23:471–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gulabivala K, Stock CJR, Lewsey JD, Ghori S, Ng Y-L, Spratt DA. Effectiveness of electrochemically activated water as an irrigant in an infected tooth model. Int Endod J. 2004;37:624–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marais JT, Williams WP. Antimicrobial effectiveness of electro-chemically activated water as an endodontic irrigation solution. Int Endod J. 2001;34:237–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zan R, Alacam T, Hubbezoglu I, Tunc T, Sumer Z, Alici O. Antibacterial efficacy of super-oxidized water on enterococcus faecalis biofilms in root canal. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2016;9:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hope CK, Garton SG, Wang Q, Burnside G, Farrelly PJ. A direct comparison between extracted tooth and filter-membrane biofilm models of endodontic irrigation using enterococcus faecalis. Arch Microbiol. 2010;192:775–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ruqshan Anjum M, Sujatha I, Sharath CS. Antimicrobial efficacy of various irrigating solutions on E. faecalis in root canals: an in-vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2015;1:94–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lata S, Mohanty SK, Pradhan PK, Patri G, Sinha SP, Agrawal P. Antibacterial effectiveness of electro-chemically activated (ECA) water as a root canal irrigant: an in-vitro comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:138–42.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ichioka Y, Kado T, Mashima I, Nakazawa F, Endo K, Furuichi Y. Effects of chemical treatment as an adjunctive of air-abrasive debridement on restoring the surface chemical properties and cytocompatibility of experimentally contaminated titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2020;108:183–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Okamura T, Tamura M, Suguro H, Ohtsu M, Omagari D, Yoshino A, Ogiso B, Asano M. Bactericidal and cytotoxic effects of acid-electrolyzed functional water. J Oral Sci. 2019;61:512–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Okanda T, Takahashi R, Ehara T, Ohkusu K, Furuya N, Matsumoto T. Slightly acidic electrolyzed water disrupts biofilms and effectively disinfects Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Infect Chemother. 2019;25:452–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gunaydin M, Esen S, Karadag A, Unal N, Yanik K, Odabasi H, Birinci A. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Medilox® super-oxidized water. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob. 2014;13:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Okajima M, Kanzaki M, Ishibashi Y, Wada Y, Hino F, Kitahara Y, Shimokawa K, Ishii F. In vitro bactericidal activity against periodontopathic bacteria by electrolyzed ion-reduced water. Drug Discov Ther. 2011;5:306–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jnanadev KR, Satish Babu CL, Shilpa Shetty S, Surendra Kumar GP, Sheetal HS. Disinfecting the acrylic resin plate using electrolyzed acid water and 2% glutaraldehyde: a comparative microbiological study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2011;11:36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gomi K, Makino T, Suzuki S, Hasegawa M, Maeda N, Arai T. Microbicidal and cytotoxic effects of functional water in vitro. Quintessence Int. 2010;41:166–72.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yamada K, Yama M, Takaku Y, Kakizawa T, Kimizuka R, Okuda K, Kato T. Antimicrobial activity of super-oxidised water against oral microorganisms. Arch Oral Biol. 2010;55:397–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ileri C, Sezen Y, Dimoglo A. Investigation of the efficacy of electrolyzed acid water on the standard strains of some pathogenic microorganisms. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2006;40:317–24.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vorobjeva NV, Vorobjeva LI, Khodjaev EY. The bactericidal effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on bacterial strains involved in hospital infections. Artif Organs. 2004;28:590–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shimada K, Ito K, Murai S. A comparison of the bactericidal effects and cytotoxic activity of three types of oxidizing water, prepared by electrolysis, as chemical dental plaque control agents. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000;15:49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Horiba N, Hiratsuka K, Onoe T, Yoshida T, Suzuki K, Matsumoto T, Nakamura H. Bactericidal effect of electrolyzed neutral water on bacteria isolated from infected root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999;87:83–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tanaka H, Hirakata Y, Kaku M, Yoshida R, Takemura H, Mizukane R, Ishida K, Tomono K, Koga H, Kohno S, et al. Antimicrobial activity of superoxidized water. J Hosp Infect. 1996;34:43–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ogiwara K, Ogawa T, Asaki N, Numabe Y, Kamoi K. Bactericidal effect of alkalic electrolyzed water. Oral Ther Pharmacol. 1996;15:130–6.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ogawa T, Nakamura H, Fujita H, Kamoi H, Nakaya H, Kamoi K. Bactericidal effect of soft alkalescence electrolyzed water on periodontopathic bacteria. Oral Ther Pharmacol. 1998;17:81–5.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hsieh S-C, Teng N-C, Chu CC, Chu Y-T, Chen C-H, Chang L-Y, Hsu C-Y, Huang C-S, Hsiao GY-W, Yang J-C. The antibacterial efficacy and in vivo toxicity of sodium hypochlorite and electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water-based endodontic irrigating solutions. Materials. 2020;13:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Salisbury AM, Percival SL. The efficacy of an electrolysed water formulation on biofilms. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1214:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kim S-B. Development of a mouthwash alternative using a low-level hypochlorous acid solution with macroporous platinum electrodes and its application to oral health. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2016;11:21304–11.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Davis JM, Maki J, Bahcall JK. An in vitro comparison of the antimicrobial effects of various endodontic medicaments on enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2007;33:567–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Landa-Solis C, González-Espinosa D, Guzmán-Soriano B, Snyder M, Reyes-Terán G, Torres K, Gutierrez AA. Microcyntm: a novel super-oxidized water with neutral pH and disinfectant activity. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61:291–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Walker JT, Bradshaw DJ, Fulford MR, Marsh PD. Microbiological evaluation of a range of disinfectant products to control mixed-species biofilm contamination in a laboratory model of a dental unit water system. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:3327–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yoo Y, Shin H, Lee S-H. Comparison of antimicrobial activity of electrolyzed water using various electrodes against biofilm of oral pathogens. Int J Oral Biol. 2015;40:135–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Cho I-W, Nam T-K, Baek D-H. Investigation of efficacy of new electrolyzed water generator for oral bacteria. Int J Clin Prev Dent. 2017;13:5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee K. Neutral electrolyzed water for prevention of dental caries. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2016;43:306–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gupta M, Prakash P, Bharti S, Paswan A, Singh DK, Tilak R. Superoxidised water: a promising disinfectant against bacterial and fungal pathogens. Annals Pathol Lab Med. 2017;4:A19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lucio-Sauceda DG, Urrutia-Baca VH, Gomez-Flores R, De La Garza-Ramos MA, Tamez-Guerra P, Orozco-Flores A. Antimicrobial and anti-biofilm effect of an electrolyzed superoxidized solution at neutral-pH against helicobacter pylori. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Park Y-K. Antimicrobial effect of slightly acidic electrolyzed water on oral microorganisms. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2013;37:187–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Yanik K, Karadag A, Unal N, Odabasi H, Esen S, Gunaydin M. An ınvestigation into the in-vitro effectiveness of electrolyzed water against various microorganisms. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:11463–9.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Vahabi S, Shokri M, Lazar M. Effects of electrolyzed water on the growth of oral pathologic bacteria species and its cytotoxic effects on fibroblast and epithelial cells at different pH values. Iran J Med Sci. 2020;45:277–85.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sakai T, Shiba A, Bandai M, Nakane F, Iinuma H, Mukai K, Miura N, Ikeda M, Shiba K, Mizuno T. Application of electrolyzed water produced by OXILYZER for dental region. Part 1. General rules for usage. J Jpn Prosthodont Soc. 1993;37:920–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Goishi Y, Sato T, Niwa M. Bactericidal effects of aqua oxidizing water and evaluation of safety by DNA synthesis and membrane damage of cultured human gingival cells. J Dent Hlth. 1996;46:178–86.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Song Y-G, Lee S-H. Efficacy of newly developed denture cleaning device on physical properties of denture material and Candida biofilm. J Dent Sci. 2019;14:248–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pyo K-R, Yoo Y, Baek D-H. Antifungal effect of electrolyzed hydrogen water on Candida albicans biofilm. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2015;31:212–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Morita C, Sano K, Morimatsu S, Kiura H, Goto T, Kohno T, Hong W, Miyoshi H, Iwasawa A, Nakamura Y, et al. Disinfection potential of electrolyzed solutions containing sodium chloride at low concentrations. J Virol Methods. 2000;85:163–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Shimizu Y, Sugawara H. Virucidal and bactericidal effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water: comparison of disinfectant effect with electrolyzed oxidizing water and hypochlorous acid. Jpn J Oral Biol. 1996;38:564–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Nakano M, Takao A, Maeda N, Hosoya N. Efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water against contamination of water line of dental units —continuous investigation over seven years—. Jpn J Hyg. 2020;75:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Fujita M, Mashima I, Nakazawa F. Monitoring the decontamination efficacy of the novel Poseidon-S disinfectant system in dental unit water lines. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2017;50:270–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Kohno S, Kawata T, Kaku M, Fuita T, Tsutsui K, Ohtani J, Tenjo K, Motokawa M, Tohma Y, Shigekawa M, et al. Bactericidal effects of acidic electrolyzed water on the dental unit waterline. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2004;57:52–4.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Sayaka Mishima JS, Takahashi K, Nagao M, Ichiyama S, Bessho K. Effect of inhibition of bacterial proliferation by neutral electrolytic water in dental unit waterlines. Oral Health Dent Manag. 2016;15:237–40.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Martin MV, Gallagher MA. An investigation of the efficacy of super–oxidised (Optident/Sterilox) water for the disinfection of dental unit water lines. Br Dent J. 2005;198:353–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Jeyapalan V, Krishnan CS, Ramasubramanian H, Sampathkumar J, Azhagarasan NS, Krishnan M. Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of three immersion chemical disinfectants on clinically derived poly (vinyl siloxane) impressions. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:469–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Wu G, Yu X, Gu Z. Ultrasonically nebulised electrolysed oxidising water: a promising new infection control programme for impressions, metals and gypsum casts used in dental hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2008;68:348–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nagamatsu Y, Chen K-K, Nagamatsu H, Kozono Y, Shimizu H. Application of neutral electrolyzed water to disinfection of alginate impression. Dent Mater J. 2016;35:270–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Nagamatsu Y, Tajima K, Kakigawa H, Kozono Y. Application of electrolyzed acid water to sterilization of denture base part 1. Examination of aterilization effects on resin plate. Dent Mater J. 2001;20:148–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Campregher UB: Produção de água eletrolisada ácida para uso em odontologia. 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/174481.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Froum SH, Froum SJ. Incidence of COVID-19 virus transmission in three dental offices: a 6-month retrospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2020;40:853–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Gutiérrez-García R, De La Cerda-Ángeles JC, Cabrera-Licona A, Delgado-Enciso I, Mervitch-Sigal N, Paz-Michel BA. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal rinses with neutral electrolyzed water prevents COVID-19 in front-line health professionals: a randomized, open-label, controlled trial in a general hospital in Mexico City. Biomed Rep. 2022;16:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Nakajima N, Nakano T, Harada F, Taniguchi H, Yokoyama I, Hirose J, Daikoku E, Sano K. Evaluation of disinfective potential of reactivated free chlorine in pooled tap water by electrolysis. J Microbiol Methods. 2004;57:163–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lee SH, Choi BK. Antibacterial effect of electrolyzed water on oral bacteria. J Microbiol. 2006;44:417–22.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Vásquez-López A, Gómez-Jaimes R, Villarreal-Barajas T. Effectiveness of neutral electrolyzed water and copper oxychloride on fungi spores isolated from tropical fruits. Heliyon. 2021;7:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This investigation has been financially supported by the grant Fondecyt 1220999 from the Chilean Governmental Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID). EAC was a recipient of the Ph.D. scholarship from the School of Graduates of the Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, and the Osteology Foundation Research Scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Periodontal Biology Laboratory, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Chile, Sergio Livingstone Pohlhammer 943, 8380492, Santiago, Independencia, Chile

    Angélica M. Cárdenas, Vanessa Campos-Bijit & Rolando Vernal

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Santo Tomás, Bucaramanga, Colombia

    Angélica M. Cárdenas

  3. Department of Science and Innovation, BIOMEP Research Group, Bucaramanga, Colombia

    Angélica M. Cárdenas

  4. Multidisciplinary Department of Medical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Campania University Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy

    Fabrizio Di Francesco

  5. Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Carolinum, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Frank Schwarz & Emilio A. Cafferata

  6. Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur, Av. Paseo de la República 5544, 15074, Lima, Miraflores, Peru

    Emilio A. Cafferata

Authors
  1. Angélica M. Cárdenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Campos-Bijit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabrizio Di Francesco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emilio A. Cafferata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rolando Vernal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AC and VC selected the studies and extracted the data. AC and EAC assessed the RoB of the selected studies. FDF and FS performed the heterogeneity analyses. EAC and RV conceived the study, designed the methodology, drafted the protocol, and prepared the final version of the manuscript for submission. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Emilio A. Cafferata or Rolando Vernal.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Material 1.

Search Strategies carried out in MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane’s CENTRAL, and LILACS databases.

Additional file 2: Supplementary Material 2.

Excluded articles and their respective reasons for exclusion.

Additional file 3: Supplementary Material 3.

Risk of Bias assessment using the NPQIP tool.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cárdenas, A.M., Campos-Bijit, V., Di Francesco, F. et al. Electrolyzed water for the microbiologic control in the pandemic dental setting: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 22, 579 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02528-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02528-0

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us