Skip to content

Controlling Oral Malodor by ClōSYS® Oral Rinse

Efficacy of ClōSYS® Oral Rinse Products in Human Subjects in Controlling Oral Malodor

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03160560
Enrollment
100
Registered
2017-05-19
Start date
2016-08-31
Completion date
2016-11-30
Last updated
2021-01-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Oral Malodor

Brief summary

The purpose of this Study is to assess the efficacy of two ClōSYS Oral Rinse products in human subjects in controlling oral malodor in partial fulfillment of the requirements for American Dental Association's (ADA) requirement for obtaining ADA Seal for malodor.

Detailed description

Study Design: The products used in the study are: ClōSYS Alcohol-Free Oral Rinse (also referred as ClōSYS Unflavored Oral Rinse) and ClōSYS justRIGHT MILD MINT Oral Rinse (also referred as ClōSYS Flavored Oral Rinse or Gentle Mint Flavored Oral Rinse). This is an in-vivo, eight-week, a single-center, randomized, double-blind (subject/investigator), 2-way cross-over design clinical study. There are two independent groups. Each subject of each group gets crossed over to the other sub-group within a same group after the washout period. Each group has their own control group. In the first phase, 25 subjects (50%) of each group are randomly assigned to the active group; the other 25 subjects are assigned to the control group. In the second phase, the participants will be crossed over within sub-group assignment. The Study enrolled 100 subjects, aged 21 to 65 years, with a slight to strong intrinsic oral malodor, as determined by a panel of trained odor judges calibrated and standardized using a range of standard odorants sufficient to reflect the different patterns of nose receptors. Study Plan: Subjects will receive verbal and written oral hygiene instructions, and either one bottle (16 oz. each) of ClōSYS Unflavored Oral Rinse, ClōSYS Flavored Oral Rinse- or Placebo Oral Rinse each week. Subjects will also receive measuring cups for dispensing the rinse and a diary log for recording usage (the Oral Hygiene Kit) for use during the treatment. After a 2-week wash out period, each subject will receive another bottle of oral rinse according to their group assignment. Subjects will be instructed to rinse twice a day, each in the morning and in the evening, with 15 mL mouth rinse for 30 seconds. They will note in their patient's log the date and time of rinsing. Subjects will be instructed to continue with their normal oral hygiene practices, including tooth brushing but omitting any use of oral rinses or mouthwashes except for the Study materials. The subjects also will be instructed not to use other non-study related products such as breath mints, lozenge, gums, etc. as well as refraining from elective dental procedures during the study period.

Interventions

Subjects in Test group will receive ClōSYS® Unflavored Rinse.

Subjects in Test group will receive ClōSYS® Flavored Rinse.

OTHERPlacebo

Subjects in Placebo group will receive Placebo Rinse.

Sponsors

Loma Linda University
CollaboratorOTHER
Rowpar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Completion of the Informed Consent. * Must be able to follow verbal/written instructions. * Between 21 to 65 years of age, male or female. * Has normal oral interior cheek wall tissues. * In good general health. * Should not have any severe or debilitating disease that may impede participation. * Average organoleptic intensity rating of at \>2.6 but \<4.5 on an intensity scale of 0-5.

Exclusion criteria

* Pregnant or nursing. * Diagnosis of Xerostomia, including medication induced Xerostomia. * Oral or extraoral piercing that interferes with the clinical assessments in the mouth. * Fixed or removable oral appliance. * Advanced periodontal disease or excessive gingival recession. * Known allergy or sensitivity to study products. * Unwilling to abstain from all oral hygiene products other than those prescribed for the study. * Heavy deposits of calculus, either supragingival and/or subgingival. * History of severe transmittable infectious disease e.g. hepatitis, HIV, tuberculosis. * Medical or dental condition that would be unduly affected by participation in this study. * Any other condition that may interfere with the study.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreAt baseline and weekly for 3 weeks for each condition and cross-overA 6-level organoleptic score from 0 - 5 will be used. Score of 0 indicating malodor cannot be detected and score of 5 indicating very strong malodor. Breath scores were compared to baseline with malodor intensity reduction recorded as negative.

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Study panelists were recruited by placing IRB-approved advertisements in the the Loma Linda University newsletter and local communities. Potential subjects were interviewed by telephone and screened for their eligibility to participate in the study.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Test-Unflavored Rinse, Then Placebo
Participants received ClōSYS® Unflavored Rinse, Then Placebo Unflavored Rinse
25
Test-Flavored Rinse, Then Placebo
Subjects received ClōSYS® Flavored Rinse, Then Placebo Flavored Rinse.
25
Placebo, Then Flavored Rinse
Subjects in Placebo group received Placebo Rinse, then ClōSYS® Flavored Rinse
25
Placebo, Then Unflavored Rinse
Subjects in Placebo group received Placebo Rinse, then ClōSYS® Unflavored Rinse.
25
Total100

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002FG003
First Intervention (3 Weeks)Withdrawal by Subject2110
Second Intervention (3 Weeks)Withdrawal by Subject1000

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicTest-Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboPlacebo, Then Flavored RinsePlacebo, Then Unflavored RinseTest-Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboTotal
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
25 Participants25 Participants25 Participants25 Participants100 Participants
Age, Continuous40.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3
38.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.3
45.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.9
45.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.5
42.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.5
Race and Ethnicity Not Collected0 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
25 participants25 participants25 participants25 participants100 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
18 Participants16 Participants8 Participants10 Participants52 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
6 Participants8 Participants17 Participants13 Participants44 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 500 / 500 / 500 / 50
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 500 / 500 / 500 / 50
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 500 / 500 / 500 / 50

Outcome results

Primary

Change in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic Score

A 6-level organoleptic score from 0 - 5 will be used. Score of 0 indicating malodor cannot be detected and score of 5 indicating very strong malodor. Breath scores were compared to baseline with malodor intensity reduction recorded as negative.

Time frame: At baseline and weekly for 3 weeks for each condition and cross-over

Population: All participants

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 32.58 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.43
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline3.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.34
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 12.90 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.52
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 22.64 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.48
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline 2-Crossover3.44 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 63.18 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.61
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 73.01 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.59
Unflavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 82.96 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.49
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 63.04 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.49
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline 2-Crossover3.20 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.44
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 12.92 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.31
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 82.83 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.44
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline3.08 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.38
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 32.68 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.51
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 22.78 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Flavored Rinse, Then PlaceboChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 72.94 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.48
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 13.11 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.46
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 23.07 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.53
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 33.07 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.44
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline 2-Crossover3.15 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.42
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 63.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.46
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 83.10 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline3.03 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.19
Placebo Flavored, Then Flavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 73.13 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.4
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 13.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 33.19 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.43
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 23.12 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.43
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 73.10 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline 2-Crossover3.14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.46
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 83.09 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.43
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreBaseline3.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.41
Placebo Unflavored, Then Unflavored RinseChange in Malodor as Measured by Organoleptic ScoreWeek 63.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.41
Comparison: Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3p-value: <0.01Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3p-value: 0.932Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8p-value: 0.853Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline-2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8p-value: 0.032Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3p-value: <0.001Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline, Week 1, Week 2, Week 3p-value: 0.75Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8p-value: 0.81Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)
Comparison: Baseline 2, Week 6, Week 7, Week 8p-value: 0.006Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney)

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026