Comparison of gargling and swabbing methods for delivering pre-procedural povidone-iodine mouthrinse: a randomised crossover trial

Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) mouthrinse is widely used as a pre-procedural antiseptic because of its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. Its effectiveness depends on maintaining sufficient iodine levels in saliva, enabling direct antimicrobial action within the oral cavity. However, the conventional gargling method may not be suitable for individuals with swallowing difficulties, limiting its practical application. This study aimed to compare salivary iodine concentrations achieved by two delivery methods—gargling and swabbing—using 0.2% PVP-I mouthrinse at specific post-application time intervals. A randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted in 25 healthy Thai adults aged 18–30 years. Participants received either gargling with 10 mL of 0.2% PVP-I or swabbing with 2 mL of 0.2% PVP-I for 1 min, followed by a 48-hour washout period before crossing over to the alternate intervention. Unstimulated saliva samples were collected at baseline and at 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 120 min after mouthrinse application. Iodine concentrations were determined using inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Differences in salivary iodine levels were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Baseline salivary iodine concentrations did not differ significantly between interventions (p = 0.579). Gargling produced significantly higher peak iodine concentrations than swabbing (2,774 ppm vs. 1,061 ppm; p < 0.001). Salivary iodine levels declined significantly over the first 20 min in both groups (p < 0.001), followed by similar clearance patterns over time. Throughout the 120-minute observation period, iodine concentrations achieved by both delivery methods remained above the the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended threshold for viral inactivation (75–150 ppm). Both gargling and swabbing with 0.2% PVP-I resulted in immediate peak salivary iodine concentrations exceeding the CDC-recommended threshold for viral inactivation. While gargling achieved higher peak levels, swabbing maintained iodine concentrations above this threshold for the duration of observation. These findings suggest that swabbing may represent a feasible alternative delivery method in situations where gargling is not practical. Further studies evaluating direct antimicrobial outcomes and broader patient populations are warranted to clarify clinical effectiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06272019. Registered on February 22, 2024.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Oral Health
Published
2026-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-026-07863-0
Primary Topic
Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of gargling and swabbing methods for delivering pre-procedural povidone-iodine mouthrinse: a randomised crossover trial

Wannakorn Sriarj, Chutima Trairatvorakul, Tirayut Vilaivan, Wimonrach Sriudom
BMC Oral Health
Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
article

Comparison of gargling and swabbing methods for delivering pre-procedural povidone-iodine mouthrinse: a randomised crossover trial

Wannakorn Sriarj, Chutima Trairatvorakul, Tirayut Vilaivan, Wimonrach Sriudom
article en

Abstract

Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) mouthrinse is widely used as a pre-procedural antiseptic because of its broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. Its effectiveness depends on maintaining sufficient iodine levels in saliva, enabling direct antimicrobial action within the oral cavity. However, the conventional gargling method may not be suitable for individuals with swallowing difficulties, limiting its practical application. This study aimed to compare salivary iodine concentrations achieved by two delivery methods—gargling and swabbing—using 0.2% PVP-I mouthrinse at specific post-application time intervals. A randomized crossover clinical trial was conducted in 25 healthy Thai adults aged 18–30 years. Participants received either gargling with 10 mL of 0.2% PVP-I or swabbing with 2 mL of 0.2% PVP-I for 1 min, followed by a 48-hour washout period before crossing over to the alternate intervention. Unstimulated saliva samples were collected at baseline and at 0, 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 120 min after mouthrinse application. Iodine concentrations were determined using inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Differences in salivary iodine levels were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Baseline salivary iodine concentrations did not differ significantly between interventions (p = 0.579). Gargling produced significantly higher peak iodine concentrations than swabbing (2,774 ppm vs. 1,061 ppm; p < 0.001). Salivary iodine levels declined significantly over the first 20 min in both groups (p < 0.001), followed by similar clearance patterns over time. Throughout the 120-minute observation period, iodine concentrations achieved by both delivery methods remained above the the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recommended threshold for viral inactivation (75–150 ppm). Both gargling and swabbing with 0.2% PVP-I resulted in immediate peak salivary iodine concentrations exceeding the CDC-recommended threshold for viral inactivation. While gargling achieved higher peak levels, swabbing maintained iodine concentrations above this threshold for the duration of observation. These findings suggest that swabbing may represent a feasible alternative delivery method in situations where gargling is not practical. Further studies evaluating direct antimicrobial outcomes and broader patient populations are warranted to clarify clinical effectiveness. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06272019. Registered on February 22, 2024.

BMC Oral HealthVol. 26(1)
Chulalongkorn University (TH)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.