Probiotics and postbiotics in caries and periodontal prevention: mechanisms, clinical evidence, and trajectory of the field

INTRODUCTION

Dental caries and periodontal disease remain among the most prevalent non-communicable conditions of the human mouth, and both are now understood as consequences of a biofilm that has drifted away from homeostasis. For most of the twentieth century caries was attributed to specific acidogenic organisms and was managed by mechanical removal and broad antimicrobial agents. That view gave way to the ecological plaque hypothesis, which described disease as a disruption of microbial homeostasis driven by environmental pressure, chiefly repeated exposure to fermentable carbohydrate, rather than by the arrival of a single pathogen.(1) Sequencing-based surveys later confirmed that oral disease arises from a dysbiotic shift of a resident biofilm and not from an exogenous invader.(2) The reframing changed the therapeutic target from eradication to restoration of a balanced community, and it also reclassified caries as a non-communicable disease that shares risk factors with other chronic conditions, with consequences for how prevention is organized across health systems.(3,4) Both diseases impose heavy and unequal burdens, concentrated in childhood for caries and in adult life for periodontitis, and both are now approached as preventable conditions rather than as problems to be repaired after they appear.(4)

Probiotics, defined as live microorganisms that confer a health benefit when administered in adequate amounts, entered dentistry as a direct extension of this ecological reasoning.(5) Early reviews catalogued strains, mostly lactobacilli, bifidobacteria and streptococci, with anticariogenic or anti-gingivitis potential in vitro and in small clinical studies, and they already warned that the effect tends to fade once administration stops.(6,7) The oral microbiota is nonetheless highly resilient, and exogenously administered strains tend to colonize only transiently, which set an early limit on the durability of any benefit.(8)

A second conceptual turn arrived with postbiotics, defined in 2021 by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics as preparations of inanimate microorganisms and/or their components that confer a health benefit on the host.(9) Postbiotics bypass the viability and colonization constraints of live cells while retaining many bioactive fractions, from cell wall components to secreted metabolites, and they carry practical advantages in shelf life and safety.(10,11) The definition and its scope continue to be discussed and clarified, in part because the boundary between an inactivated cell and its secreted products remains a matter of debate.(12)

The clinical literature on both classes accumulated rapidly between 2019 and 2026, but it remains scattered across caries and periodontal endpoints, in vitro mechanisms and heterogeneous trials, and its conclusions diverge.(13,14) A synthesis that traces the trajectory of the field, rather than cataloguing individual studies, is therefore timely; recent consensus work stresses that the microbiome can act both as an actor and as a stage for these interventions, although the practical translation is still unsettled.(15)

The objective of this review is to synthesize the evolution of the mechanistic and clinical evidence on probiotics and postbiotics for the prevention of dental caries and periodontal disease. The synthesis is organized chronologically in three periods, consolidation (2019-2021), refinement and emergence of postbiotics (2022-2024), and the current inflection toward standardization (2025-2026), to identify what changed, what persisted, and the gaps that define the research agenda.

METHODS

This narrative review was planned and reported according to the main SANRA items, without simulating exhaustiveness or systematic procedures. A literature search was run in October 2026 in OpenAlex, PubMed and Crossref with combinations of the terms probiotics, postbiotics, dental caries, periodontal disease, gingivitis, periodontitis, Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus, and clinical trial. No lower date limit was applied to supporting literature, while 2019 to 2026 was set as the window for the core studies that sustain the synthesis. The reference lists of recent systematic reviews were used to complete the selection, and each selected reference was verified against its digital object identifier before inclusion.

Studies were eligible when they addressed mechanisms of action or clinical effects of probiotics, synbiotics or postbiotics on caries or periodontal outcomes in humans, animals or in vitro systems. Studies limited to unrelated oral conditions, oral cancer, halitosis or wound healing were excluded unless they informed a mechanistic point. Peer-reviewed reviews, randomized trials, systematic reviews with meta-analysis and preclinical studies were included; abstracts and theses were not. The search was restricted to English-language databases, which is acknowledged as a limitation.

The development is organized chronologically into three periods delimited by explicit criteria: consolidation of mechanisms and first-generation trials (2019-2021), refinement of strain specificity and emergence of postbiotics (2022-2024), and the current inflection toward postbiotics and standardization (2025-2026). The boundaries were chosen because the postbiotic concept gained traction in the early 2020s and lesion-level outcomes appeared only at the end of the window, so the periods capture genuine changes in the questions the field was asking rather than arbitrary cuts. The foundations published before 2019 are summarized in the Introduction with classic references. For each period the evidence was grouped by mechanism, caries outcomes and periodontal outcomes, and a working matrix linked each claim to the studies that support or contradict it and to their design and limitations. Four tables and two figures synthesize the mechanisms, the representative clinical studies and the trajectory of the field. The catalogue of the target publisher was also searched for pertinent articles; none addressed the topic directly, so none is cited here.

DEVELOPMENT

The evidence is presented in the three periods that structure the review (Figure 1). Across the window, the number of core studies per year reflects a field that grew steadily and then concentrated its output in the most recent years, in parallel with the consolidation of the postbiotic concept (Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

The trajectory reconstructed here runs from live probiotics to postbiotics, and the most consistent finding is also the most sobering: the mechanisms are reproducible, but the clinical effects are modest and unevenly distributed across outcomes. Reductions in Streptococcus mutans, in probing depth and in bleeding on probing recur across trials, whereas hard lesion outcomes were measured only at the end of the window and remain rare. The field therefore changed in its object, from proving that beneficial microbes can shift the oral biofilm to standardizing which preparation, at which dose and for which endpoint.

What changed is easiest to describe. The mechanistic basis grew from the ecological plaque hypothesis(1) into a catalogue of strain-specific actions, including secreted antimicrobials, inhibition of glucan synthesis and immunomodulation.(63,64) Early oral reviews that compiled candidate strains(6,7) were progressively replaced by syntheses organized around dysbiosis restoration.(13,65) The decisive conceptual change was the formal definition of postbiotics,(9) which legitimized inactivated and cell-free preparations and redirected attention from colonization, which the oral cavity resists,(8) to the bioactive fractions themselves.(66,67)

What persisted is the heterogeneity. Trial-level results in caries range from significant reductions in incidence with thermally inactivated Lactobacillus salivarius(31) to null recurrence in a small L. reuteri trial,(32) and the meta-analytic evidence describes the pooled benefit as modest.(51) In periodontitis, meta-analyses agree on improvements in probing depth and bleeding,(38,39) but a clinical perspective on forty studies documented variability and regression with longer follow-up.(42) The disagreement is explained less by biology than by design: populations differ in age and baseline risk, strains and vehicles are rarely comparable, doses are unstandardized, and outcomes range from microbial counts to ICDAS transitions. This is the same diagnosis reached by reviews of commercial viability and delivery.(43,48)

The two diseases also followed different trajectories. Caries research adopted microbial counts early but reached lesion-level outcomes late, whereas periodontal research adopted clinical probing outcomes from the outset and then enriched them with microbiological and inflammatory markers.(38,39) This asymmetry explains why the caries literature is dominated by Streptococcus mutans surrogates while the periodontal literature already sustains meta-analytic estimates of clinical benefit, and it cautions against reading the two bodies of evidence with the same yardstick.

The gap between laboratory and clinic deserves emphasis. In vitro and animal models reproduce the mechanisms faithfully, from glucan inhibition(18) to macrophage polarization,(55) yet clinical trials repeatedly settle at modest effects. Part of the gap is ecological, because the resident biofilm resists replacement and an exogenous strain must act within its brief window of persistence.(8,44) Part is measurement, because surrogate endpoints are sensitive but do not capture the clinical event that matters.

The emergence of postbiotics does not resolve the heterogeneity, but it changes the risk calculus. Because postbiotics are inanimate, they avoid the safety concerns attached to live cells in immunocompromised or very young patients and simplify storage and formulation.(53,54) Mechanistically, cell-free products retain the antibiofilm activity of the parent strain,(35) and preclinical periodontitis models show that postbiotics can suppress macrophage-driven inflammation and alveolar bone loss.(55,56) Whether this advantage translates into lesion-level prevention in humans is the open question that the 2026 trial of L. rhamnosus SP1 began to answer for live cells.(52)

Compared with prior reviews, this synthesis is distinctive in treating time as the organizing variable. Earlier comprehensive accounts listed mechanisms and studies without periodization,(14,68) whereas the chronological reading reveals that the field crossed two thresholds: the demonstration that viability is not essential for anticaries effect, which appeared as early as 2022,(31) and the adoption of lesion progression as an outcome, which arrived only in 2026.(52) The first threshold explains the current prominence of postbiotics; the second is the prerequisite for regulatory and clinical acceptance.

The meta-analytic record also contains internal tensions worth naming. Preschool reviews read the evidence as encouraging,(34) while the network meta-analysis downgrades the same benefit to moderate certainty and modest size.(51) The difference is not a contradiction: it reflects the inclusion window, the outcome selected and the strictness of the certainty assessment, which is exactly the heterogeneity that standardization is meant to reduce.

The practical implications follow from this reading. Probiotics and postbiotics are adjuncts, not substitutes: they do not replace fluoride, sugar restriction or mechanical biofilm control, and in periodontitis they add value to scaling and root planing rather than replacing it.(38,61) Strain selection should be deliberate, because Lactobacillus reuteri and L. rhamnosus carry the largest evidence base.(51) For patients in whom live cells are undesirable, postbiotic formulations offer a lower-risk alternative with emerging support.(53,54)

These conclusions translate differently across patient groups. In children, the evidence supports probiotic milk or lozenges as a low-risk adjunct to fluoride and dietary control, with the strongest data for L. rhamnosus and L. reuteri.(47,52) In orthodontic patients, where plaque accumulates around fixed appliances, probiotic drops reduce the acidogenic challenge but not necessarily the microbial load.(24) In adults under periodontal maintenance, the role is narrower and should be reserved for patients with poor plaque control or residual bleeding.(61) In all groups the recommendation depends on strain, dose and follow-up, which the standardized trials of the coming years are expected to specify.(60)

The clinical meaning of these effect sizes should be stated plainly. A reduction in bleeding on probing of a few points, or a difference in cavitation of about 20 percentage points in one trial, does not abolish the need for conventional prevention, but it represents a real, low-risk increment for patients who already perform daily biofilm control.(52,60) Expectations are therefore best framed as adjunctive rather than curative.

Safety considerations reinforce the postbiotic turn. Live probiotics are generally regarded as safe, but they are avoided in severely immunocompromised hosts, and their viability through storage and formulation is uncertain.(43) Inactivated preparations remove both concerns while preserving the effector fractions, which is why the most recent syntheses frame postbiotics as the safer and more stable member of the biotics family.(53,54)

This review has limitations that condition its conclusions. The search was not systematic and did not apply a formal risk-of-bias instrument to every study; a future systematic review with PRISMA reporting and graded certainty would complement this account. The selection was restricted to English-language databases, so studies published in other languages may be missing; widening the search would test the robustness of the trajectory described here. Publication bias probably inflates the positive signals, because null trials in this field are less visible; registration-based searches would address it. Finally, several of the findings that anchor the trajectory rest on single trials or preclinical models, particularly for postbiotics, and the pooled estimates depend on short follow-up; primary lesion-level trials with standardized dose, vehicle and follow-up are the most direct remedy.

The evidence base also skews geographically. Most of the trials summarized here were conducted in European, Asian and Latin American pediatric settings, and the transferability of the effect to other populations and oral health systems is assumed rather than demonstrated.(52,62) Studies in low-income settings, where the caries burden is concentrated, are scarce, and the delivery-vehicle work suggests that formulation and local infrastructure will condition real-world uptake.(25)

The research agenda that follows is concrete. Trials should report progression of non-cavitated and cavitated lesions rather than Streptococcus mutans counts alone, following the 2026 precedent.(52) Head-to-head comparisons of live and inactivated forms of the same strain would isolate the contribution of viability. Dose-response and vehicle standardization would reduce the heterogeneity that currently limits meta-analytic certainty.(60) Postbiotic candidates that show bone protection in animals(55,56) should advance to human periodontal trials with lesion and attachment endpoints.

The next trials will also have to resolve three design questions. Whether the primary outcome should be cavitation, as in the 2026 trial,(52) or a continuous measure of lesion activity remains open, and the choice determines sample size. Whether probiotics should be compared against placebo, against fluoride, or head-to-head against their own postbiotic derivative also remains unresolved, and each comparison answers a different question.(51) The follow-up must extend beyond twelve months, because the periodontal record shows that effects can regress once administration stops.(42)

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanistic foundations of probiotics against caries and periodontal disease were consolidated between 2019 and 2021 through competitive exclusion, secreted antimicrobials, inhibition of glucan synthesis and immunomodulation. Between 2022 and 2024 the field refined strain specificity, showed that viability is not essential for anticaries benefit, and established postbiotics as inactivated or cell-free alternatives with retained antibiofilm activity. Between 2025 and 2026 the evidence moved toward lesion-level outcomes and head-to-head comparisons, with probiotics showing modest preventive effects and postbiotics emerging as the most active frontier because of their safety and stability. Throughout the trajectory, clinical effects remained statistically significant but modest, concentrated on surrogate and short-term endpoints, and constrained by heterogeneity in strain, dose, vehicle and follow-up. That persistent gap between a reproducible mechanism and a modest clinical effect, more than any single trial result, defines the standardization agenda that should guide the next generation of trials.

References

1. 1 Marsh PD. Microbial Ecology of Dental Plaque and its Significance in Health and Disease. Adv Dent Res. 1994;8(2):263-271. doi: 10.1177/08959374940080022001
2. 2 Morrison AG, Sarkar S, Umar S, Lee STM, Thomas SM. The Contribution of the Human Oral Microbiome to Oral Disease: A Review. Microorganisms. 2023;11(2):318. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11020318
3. 3 Chen X, Daliri EBM, Kim N, Kim JR, Yoo D, Oh DH. Microbial Etiology and Prevention of Dental Caries: Exploiting Natural Products to Inhibit Cariogenic Biofilms. Pathogens. 2020;9(7):569. doi: 10.3390/pathogens9070569
4. 4 Pitts NB, Twetman S, Fisher J, Marsh PD. Understanding dental caries as a non-communicable disease. Br Dent J. 2021;231(12):749-753. doi: 10.1038/s41415-021-3775-4
5. 5 Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(8):506-514. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66
6. 6 Seminario-Amez M, Lopez-Lopez J, Estrugo-Devesa A, Ayuso-Montero R, Jane-Salas E. Probiotics and oral health: A systematic review. Med Oral. 2017;22(3):0-0. doi: 10.4317/medoral.21494
7. 7 Allaker RP, Stephen AS. Use of Probiotics and Oral Health. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2017;4(4):309-318. doi: 10.1007/s40496-017-0159-6
8. 8 Wade WG. Resilience of the oral microbiome. Periodontology 2000. 2021;86(1):113-122. doi: 10.1111/prd.12365
9. 9 Salminen S, Collado MC, Endo A, Hill C, Lebeer S, Quigley EMM, et al. The International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(9):649-667. doi: 10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6
10. 10 Teame T, Wang A, Xie M, Zhang Z, Yang Y, Ding Q, et al. Paraprobiotics and Postbiotics of Probiotic Lactobacilli, Their Positive Effects on the Host and Action Mechanisms: A Review. Front Nutr. 2020;7:570344. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2020.570344
11. 11 Liang B, Xing D. The Current and Future Perspectives of Postbiotics. Probiotics & Antimicro Prot. 2023;15(6):1626-1643. doi: 10.1007/s12602-023-10045-x
12. 12 Vinderola G, Sanders ME, Cunningham M, Hill C. Frequently asked questions about the ISAPP postbiotic definition. Front Microbiol. 2024;14:1324565. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1324565
13. 13 Yu X, Devine DA, Vernon JJ. Manipulating the diseased oral microbiome: the power of probiotics and prebiotics. Journal of Oral Microbiology. 2024;16(1):2307416. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2024.2307416
14. 14 Inchingolo F, Inchingolo AM, Malcangi G, De Leonardis N, Sardano R, Pezzolla C, et al. The Benefits of Probiotics on Oral Health: Systematic Review of the Literature. Pharmaceuticals. 2023;16(9):1313. doi: 10.3390/ph16091313
15. 15 Sanders ME, Hill C. The microbiome: An actor or stage for the beneficial action of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics?. Cell Host & Microbe. 2025;33(6):777-789. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2025.04.017
16. 16 Zaura E, Twetman S. Critical Appraisal of Oral Pre- and Probiotics for Caries Prevention and Care. Caries Res. 2019;53(5):514-526. doi: 10.1159/000499037
17. 17 Yu H, Ganas P, Schwendicke F. Environment-Specific Probiotic Supernatants Modify the Metabolic Activity and Survival of Streptococcus mutans in vitro. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1447. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01447
18. 18 Noda M, Sugihara N, Sugimoto Y, Hayashi I, Sugimoto S, Danshiitsoodol N, et al. Lactobacillus reuteri BM53-1 Produces a Compound That Inhibits Sticky Glucan Synthesis by Streptococcus mutans. Microorganisms. 2021;9(7):1390. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9071390
19. 19 Bijle MN, Neelakantan P, Ekambaram M, Lo ECM, Yiu CKY. Effect of a novel synbiotic on Streptococcus mutans. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):7951. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64956-8
20. 20 Giordani B, Parolin C, Vitali B. Lactobacilli as Anti-biofilm Strategy in Oral Infectious Diseases: A Mini-Review. Front Med Technol. 2021;3:769172. doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2021.769172
21. 21 Nguyen T, Brody H, Radaic A, Kapila Y. Probiotics for periodontal health—Current molecular findings. Periodontology 2000. 2021;87(1):254-267. doi: 10.1111/prd.12382
22. 22 Jansen PM, Abdelbary MMH, Conrads G. A concerted probiotic activity to inhibit periodontitis-associated bacteria. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0248308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248308
23. 23 Schlagenhauf U, Jockel-Schneider Y. Probiotics in the Management of Gingivitis and Periodontitis. A Review. Front Dent Med. 2021;2:708666. doi: 10.3389/fdmed.2021.708666
24. 24 Alforaidi S, Bresin A, Almosa N, Lehrkinder A, Lingström P. Effect of drops containing Lactobacillus reuteri (DSM 17938 and ATCC PTA 5289) on plaque acidogenicity and other caries-related variables in orthodontic patients. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02310-2
25. 25 Piwat S, Pahumunto N, Srisommai P, Mapaisansin C, Teanpaisan R. Effect of probiotic delivery vehicles for probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus SD11 in caries prevention: A clinical study. J Food Process Preserv. 2019;43(10). doi: 10.1111/jfpp.14147
26. 26 Schlagenhauf U, Rehder J, Gelbrich G, Jockel‐Schneider Y. Consumption of Lactobacillus reuteri‐containing lozenges improves periodontal health in navy sailors at sea: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Periodontology. 2020;91(10):1328-1338. doi: 10.1002/jper.19-0393
27. 27 Butera A, Gallo S, Maiorani C, Molino D, Chiesa A, Preda C, et al. Probiotic Alternative to Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Therapy: Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Parameters. Microorganisms. 2020;9(1):69. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9010069
28. 28 Zhu Y, Wang Y, Zhang S, Li J, Li X, Ying Y, et al. Association of polymicrobial interactions with dental caries development and prevention. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1162380. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1162380
29. 29 Huang X, Bao J, Yang M, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhai Y. The role of Lactobacillus plantarum in oral health: a review of current studies. Journal of Oral Microbiology. 2024;16(1):2411815. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2024.2411815
30. 30 Luo SC, Wei SM, Luo XT, Yang QQ, Wong KH, Cheung PCK, et al. How probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics prevent dental caries: an oral microbiota perspective. npj Biofilms Microbiomes. 2024;10(1):14. doi: 10.1038/s41522-024-00488-7
31. 31 Staszczyk M, Jamka-Kasprzyk M, Kościelniak D, Cienkosz-Stepańczak B, Krzyściak W, Jurczak A. Effect of a Short-Term Intervention with Lactobacillus salivarius Probiotic on Early Childhood Caries—An Open Label Randomized Controlled Trial. IJERPH. 2022;19(19):12447. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912447
32. 32 Hasslöf P, Granqvist L, Stecksén-Blicks C, Twetman S. Prevention of Recurrent Childhood Caries with Probiotic Supplements: A Randomized Controlled Trial with a 12-Month Follow-Up. Probiotics & Antimicro Prot. 2022;14(2):384-390. doi: 10.1007/s12602-022-09913-9
33. 33 Pørksen CJ, Ekstrand KR, Markvart M, Larsen T, Garrido LE, Bakhshandeh A. The efficacy of combined arginine and probiotics as an add-on to 1450 ppm fluoride toothpaste to prevent and control dental caries in children – A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Dentistry. 2023;137:104670. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104670
34. 34 Panchbhai AS, Khatib MN, Borle RM, Deolia SS, Babar VM, Vasistha AH, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Probiotics for Dental Caries in Preschool Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2024;15(1):10-16. doi: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_40_23
35. 35 Banakar M, Pourhajibagher M, Etemad-Moghadam S, Mehran M, Yazdi MH, Haghgoo R, et al. Antimicrobial Effects of Postbiotic Mediators Derived from Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus reuteri on Streptococcus mutans. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2023;28(5):88. doi: 10.31083/j.fbl2805088
36. 36 Homayouni Rad A, Pourjafar H, Mirzakhani E. A comprehensive review of the application of probiotics and postbiotics in oral health. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023;13:1120995. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1120995
37. 37 Lin CW, Chen YT, Ho HH, Kuo YW, Lin WY, Chen JF, et al. Impact of the food grade heat-killed probiotic and postbiotic oral lozenges in oral hygiene. Aging. 2022;14(5):2221-2238. doi: 10.18632/aging.203923
38. 38 Hardan L, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Flores-Rodríguez M, Omaña-Covarrubias A, Nicastro M, et al. The Use of Probiotics as Adjuvant Therapy of Periodontal Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials. Pharmaceutics. 2022;14(5):1017. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051017
39. 39 Gheisary Z, Mahmood R, Harri shivanantham A, Liu J, Lieffers JRL, Papagerakis P, et al. The Clinical, Microbiological, and Immunological Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Prevention and Treatment of Periodontal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2022;14(5):1036. doi: 10.3390/nu14051036
40. 40 Zhang Y, Ding Y, Guo Q. Probiotic Species in the Management of Periodontal Diseases: An Overview. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:806463. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.806463
41. 41 Puzhankara L, Banerjee A, Chopra A, Venkitachalam R, Kedlaya MN. Effectiveness of probiotics compared to antibiotics to treat periodontal disease: Systematic review. Oral Diseases. 2024;30(5):2820-2837. doi: 10.1111/odi.14781
42. 42 Baddouri L, Hannig M. Probiotics as an adjunctive therapy in periodontitis treatment—reality or illusion—a clinical perspective. npj Biofilms Microbiomes. 2024;10(1):148. doi: 10.1038/s41522-024-00614-5
43. 43 Van Holm W, Lauwens K, De Wever P, Schuermans A, Zayed N, Pamuk F, et al. Probiotics for oral health: do they deliver what they promise?. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1219692. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1219692
44. 44 Di Stefano M, Polizzi A, Santonocito S, Romano A, Lombardi T, Isola G. Impact of Oral Microbiome in Periodontal Health and Periodontitis: A Critical Review on Prevention and Treatment. IJMS. 2022;23(9):5142. doi: 10.3390/ijms23095142
45. 45 Zhang J, Wang Q, Duan Z. Preventive effects of probiotics on dental caries in vitro and in vivo. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):915. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04703-x
46. 46 ŞAHİN T, AKCA G, ÖZMERİÇ N. The role of probiotics for preventing dysbiosis in periodontal disease: a randomized controlled trial. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences. 2024;54(1):357-365. doi: 10.55730/1300-0144.5798
47. 47 Caiza-Rennella A, Ordoñez-Balladares A, Caicedo-Quiroz R, Gómez-Capote I, Jiménez-Quintana Z. Effects of Oral Probiotics on Streptococcus mutans in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dentistry Journal. 2026;14(2):87. doi: 10.3390/dj14020087
48. 48 Rodriguez G, Fernández Godoy E, Chaple Gil A, Contador R, Bersezio Miranda C, Cabello R. Probiotic supplementation and dental caries prevention in children and adolescents: a systematic review of strain-specific and context-dependent effects. Clin Oral Invest. 2026;30(2):82. doi: 10.1007/s00784-026-06752-8
49. 49 Chaple Gil AM, Pereda Vázquez L, Santiesteban Velázquez M, Menendez JJ. Effect of Probiotic Supplementation on Cariogenic Streptococcus mutans Levels: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis. Australian Dental Journal. 2026;71(2):119-135. doi: 10.1111/adj.70036
50. 50 Starck E, Machado V, Botelho J, Proença L, Barroso H, Ascenso C, et al. Effects of Probiotic Short-Term Regiment on Oral Health Parameters in Children: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2025;17(22):3604. doi: 10.3390/nu17223604
51. 51 Lu C, Zhang S, Hong G. Comparative effectiveness of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics in preventing dental caries: a meta-analysis from an oral microbiota modulation perspective. BMC Oral Health. 2026;26(1):342. doi: 10.1186/s12903-026-07707-x
52. 52 Ibacache RC, Faleiros S, Díaz‐Dosque M, Ruiz B, Contador R, Moreno B, et al. Effect of probiotic supplementation on the progression of non‐cavitated carious lesions in children: A 12‐month randomized controlled trial. European J Oral Sciences. 2026;134(2):e70061. doi: 10.1111/eos.70061
53. 53 Heidari F, Heboyan A, Rokaya D, Fernandes GVO, Heidari M, Banakar M, et al. Postbiotics and Dental Caries: A Systematic Review. Clinical & Exp Dental Res. 2025;11(1):e70114. doi: 10.1002/cre2.70114
54. 54 Twetman S, Belstrøm D. Effect of Synbiotic and Postbiotic Supplements on Dental Caries and Periodontal Diseases—A Comprehensive Review. IJERPH. 2025;22(1):72. doi: 10.3390/ijerph22010072
55. 55 Park HJ, Kim MK, Heo SC, Hong DK, Park SD, Kim Y, et al. Postbiotics Derived from Lactococcus lactis and Streptococcus thermophilus Attenuate Experimental Periodontitis by Modulating Macrophage Polarization and Osteoclastogenesis. Nutrients. 2025;17(16):2638. doi: 10.3390/nu17162638
56. 56 Hong Q, Ren Y, Tang X, Mao B, Zhang Q, Zhao J, et al. Impact of Live Ligilactobacillus salivarius CCFM1332 and Its Postbiotics on Porphyromonas gingivalis Colonization, Alveolar Bone Resorption and Inflammation in a Rat Model of Periodontitis. Microorganisms. 2025;13(7):1701. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms13071701
57. 57 Jeon HW, Yang KI, Yu SJ, Kang MS, Lee WP. Clinical Efficacy of the Probiotic Weissella cibaria CMU in Adults with Gingivitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Journal of Medicinal Food. 2026;29(6):319-331. doi: 10.1177/1096620x261430298
58. 58 Pérez-Leal M, Nakhle M, Estornut C, Sánchez-Herrera G, Ribera P, Roger I, et al. Streptococcus dentisani as an oral probiotic: a systematic review of clinical evidence on the pH modulation and microbiota shifts. Journal of Oral Microbiology. 2026;18(1):2605796. doi: 10.1080/20002297.2025.2605796
59. 59 Radhamanalan G. Postbiotics and phage synergy in precision oral microbiome engineering: systems biology strategies targeting Streptococcus mutans in dental caries. Front Mol Biosci. 2026;13:1766853. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2026.1766853
60. 60 Benavides-Reyes C, Cabello I, Magán-Fernández A, Rodríguez-Barranco M, Usta SN, Mesa F. Clinical effects of probiotics on the treatment of gingivitis and periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):490. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-05888-5
61. 61 Mensi M, Scotti E, Marchetti S, Sordillo A, Garzetti G, Calza S, et al. Clinical and microbiological effectiveness of limosilactobacillus reuteri in supportive periodontal therapy: randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest. 2025;29(9):422. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06508-w
62. 62 Yilmaz FÇ, Görgin NÇ. The role of probiotics and dietary interventions in the treatment of periodontitis: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2025;25(1):1287. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06510-4
63. 63 Plaza-Diaz J, Ruiz-Ojeda FJ, Gil-Campos M, Gil A. Mechanisms of Action of Probiotics. Advances in Nutrition. 2019;10(suppl_1):S49-S66. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmy063
64. 64 Yeşilyurt N, Yılmaz B, Ağagündüz D, Capasso R. Involvement of Probiotics and Postbiotics in the Immune System Modulation. Biologics. 2021;1(2):89-110. doi: 10.3390/biologics1020006
65. 65 Deandra FA, Ketherin K, Rachmasari R, Sulijaya B, Takahashi N. Probiotics and metabolites regulate the oral and gut microbiome composition as host modulation agents in periodontitis: A narrative review. Heliyon. 2023;9(2):e13475. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13475
66. 66 Wegh CAM, Geerlings SY, Knol J, Roeselers G, Belzer C. Postbiotics and Their Potential Applications in Early Life Nutrition and Beyond. IJMS. 2019;20(19):4673. doi: 10.3390/ijms20194673
67. 67 Ma L, Tu H, Chen T. Postbiotics in Human Health: A Narrative Review. Nutrients. 2023;15(2):291. doi: 10.3390/nu15020291
68. 68 Araujo LDC, Furlaneto FAC, da Silva LAB, Kapila YL. Use of the Probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis HN019 in Oral Diseases. IJMS. 2022;23(16):9334. doi: 10.3390/ijms23169334