Virucidal activity of CPC-containing oral rinses against SARS-CoV-2 variants and are active in the presence of human saliva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The role of human saliva in aerosol-based transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has highlighted the need to understand the potential of oral hygiene products to inactivate the virus. Here we examined the efficacy of mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) or chlorhexidine (CHX) in inactivating SARS-CoV-2. After 30 seconds contact under standard aqueous conditions CPC mouthwashes achieved a ≥4.0log 10 PFU/mL reduction in SARS-CoV-2 (USA-WA1/2020) titres whereas comparable products containing CHX achieved <2.0log 10 PFU/mL reduction. Further testing with CPC mouthwashes demonstrated efficacy against multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants, with inactivation below the limit of detection observed against the Alpha (B.1.1.7), Beta (B.1.351) and Gamma (P.1) variants. Virucidal efficacy of CPC mouthwash was also observed in the presence of human saliva with the product delivering ≥4.0log 10 PFU/mL reduction in SARS-CoV-2 titres after 30 seconds providing additional evidence for the virucidal efficacy of CPC mouthwashes under simulated physiological conditions. Together these data suggest CPC-based mouthwashes are effective at inactivating SARS-CoV-2 and further supports the use of mouthwash to mitigate the risk of transmission during dentistry procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".