The study found no statistical difference in cytology between the groups at baseline (p>0.05). There was no clinical mucosal alteration observed after using the mouth rinse at the end of the study in either group. When analysing the cytological differences between both groups at the end of the study (6 months of using mouth rinses) there was no statistically significant difference (see table).1

  Cytological assessment Group 1
(Alcohol containing mouth rinse)
Group 2 - Control
(Alcohol-free mouth rinse)
Atypia - -
Binucleation 1 (3.3%) -
Karyorrhexis - 1 (3.3%)
Superficial cells (mean percentage ± SD) 47 ± 12.45 48.56 ± 11.03
Intermediate cells (mean percentage ± SD) 39.56 ± 9.54 43 ± 9.72
Parabasal cells (mean percentage ± SD) - -
Basal cells (mean percentage ± SD) - -

Adapted from Bagan JV et al. 2012.

From the table, there were no cases of atypia in either group. There was one case with binucleation in group 1 but no cases in group 2. This case was found both in the buccal mucosa scrapings and in the rinse sample, but no alteration was found in the tongue scrape. One case of karyorrhexis occurred, but only in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of superficial, intermediate, parabasal, or basal cells between the groups (p>0.05).1

In each group, five cases were studied for micronuclei by FISH analysis. Nine cases of micronucleus were detected in group 1 in a sample of 100 cells; 86% of these positive cells showed positivity by the pancentromeric probe. In the control group seven cases were detected; 83% were positive for the pancentromeric probe. There was no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05).1

In this preliminary study, a mouth rinse containing alcohol did not cause cytological alterations over 6 months of daily use versus a control.


  1. Bagan JV et al. Cytological changes in the oral mucosa after use of a mouth rinse with alcohol: A prospective double blind control study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012; 17(6): e956–961.