Search

Aim: Proper oral care is an important contributor to overall health, and various antiseptic options are available for the prevention and treatment of oral diseases. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) oral formulations remain popular for their broad spectrum of effect and favorable tolerability profile. Our aim was to provide a narrative review looking at the past and current studies evaluating PVP-I usage for the maintenance of oral health. Materials and Methods: Querying the PubMed and Web of Science databases using the terms "PVP-I," "Oral Health," and "Dental Care," we identified and systematically reviewed articles for a literature review of PVP-I applications in the area. In addition to potent antimicrobial action against common viruses, fungi, and bacteria, the absence of reported resistance to PVP-I makes it an increasingly attractive option in today's settings. Results: The applications for PVP-I range from routine oral care and gingivitis through to the management of oral mucositis and surgical site disinfection following dental surgeries. Evidence also suggests that PVP-I confers additional benefits that complement its antiseptic properties. These include anti-inflammatory, antiedematous, and hemostyptic effects, which can improve clinical outcomes. Conclusion: The clinical benefits of PVP-I warrant its ongoing consideration as a reliable antiseptic for broad oral care needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oral mucositis (OM) is a common and often dose-limiting side effect of cancer therapy. Povidone iodine (PVP-I) formulations have been shown to decrease the incidence and severity of OM, but the relevance of these findings remains unclear. The objective of the present study was to review evidence for the use of PVP-I for OM management. An algorithm identified relevant articles published online, and a panel of experts with experience in the management of OM reviewed the findings. Six studies fulfilled the criteria for full review. Two studies provided evidence of moderate quality. Two of the studies with negative findings were confounded by the use of PVP-I concentrations that are too low to be efficacious. The remaining two studies were found to have design flaws. There exists reasonable evidence to support a recommendation for the use of PVP-I in the management of cancer therapy-related OM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]