## 5 Conclusions  
The study has limitations. There was a limited number of participants, it was a short-term intervention, there was a difference in the group size, etc. Nonetheless, the results indicated that the DMW and DNMW reduced the PI without affecting the PBD, GI, and BOP scores in healthy subjects. Notably, the use of DNMW for thirty days could significantly reduce the oral pathogenic microbial load in healthy subjects. In detail, DNMW has a more significant impact on reducing oral pathogenic genus _Pseudomonas, Veillonella, Stenotrophomonas, Achromobacter, Serratia, Brevundomonas, Klebsiella, Agrobacteriumium, Lactobacillus_, and _Treponema_, which may cause oral diseases. Likewise, the DMW and DNMW showed a significant reduction in the biofilm of _S. mutans_. The current study proposed that the DMW and DNMW mouthwashes could be an adjuvant to treat and manage oral diseases. However, some of the pathogens' loads also increased after the use of mouthwashes. Thus, the results need further confirmation by experimenting with more study subjects.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12031650/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12031650/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12031650/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app12031650/s1)), Supplementary File S1: Figure S1: Taxonomy and relative frequency of the pre-and post-treatment samples G1 (a; mouthwash formulation I) and G2 (b; mouthwash formulation II). Figure S2: The comparison of genus-level changes in pre-and post-treatment samples of G1 (mouthwash formulation I). Figure S3: The comparison of genus-level changes in pre-and post-treatment samples of G2 (mouthwash formulation II). Supplementary File S2: Table S1: The observed OTUs for group 1. Table S2: The observed OTUs for the group 2. Table S3: The effect of mouthwash formulation II on the genus and species level in post-treatment samples. Table S4: The effect of mouthwash formulation II on the genus and species level in post-treatment samples.  
Conceptualization, C.C., S.S. and P.S.; methodology, C.C., S.S., N.J., P.T. and R.W.-S.; software, P.P., P.K. and M.B.; validation, C.C., S.S., B.S.S., M.B. and P.S.; formal analysis, N.J., P.T., B.S.S., P.P., P.K. and M.B.; investigation, N.J. and P.T.; resources, S.P.; data curation, N.J., P.T., W.O., P.P., P.K. and M.B.; writing--original draft preparation, C.C., N.J., B.S.S., M.B. and P.S.; writing--review and editing, C.C., S.S., B.S.S., P.P., P.K., M.B. and P.S.; visualization, S.S., P.T., R.W.-S. and P.S.; supervision, C.C., S.S., R.W.-S. and P.S.; project administration, S.P.; funding acquisition, C.C. and S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was supported by Supporting Research Funds for Industries, SuRF (RDG58I0002).  
The study was approved (No. 145/2562) by the Research Ethics Committee, Mae Fah Luang University, Thailand.  
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
All the related data has been provided in the manuscript.  
This study was partially supported by Chiang Mai University, Thailand and Neuropsychological Research Laboratory, Department of Anti-Aging and Regenerative Science, School of Anti-Aging and Regenerative Medicine, Mae Fah Luang University, Thailand.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.