meta-analysisEvidence: moderate
Oral health – plaque and gingivitis (mouthrinse)
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 RCTs comparing Triphala mouthwash with chlorhexidine (CHX) in plaque-induced gingivitis; searches to April 2020; outcomes gingival index (GI) and plaque index (PI).
Authors concluded Triphala mouthwash improved gingival inflammatory parameters with clinical efficacy comparable to chlorhexidine.[9]
Limitations: Very high statistical heterogeneity (I² 91.8% for GI, 96.1% for PI); small, mostly Indian trials of short duration; comparator-only design (no placebo arm in the pooled comparison).
meta-analysisEvidence: moderate
Oral health – plaque and gingivitis in children
Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of 5 studies in children (searches 1980–April 2023) comparing Triphala with chlorhexidine mouthwash.
No significant difference between Triphala and chlorhexidine in reduction of plaque index or gingival index (p = 0.83 and 0.96).[10]
Limitations: Only 5 studies; equivalence was inferred from non-significant differences rather than a formal non-inferiority analysis.
meta-analysisEvidence: limited
Oral health – herbal plaque control agents (incl. Triphala)
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 41 RCTs of Ayurvedic/herbal plaque control agents in gingivitis (2004–2021; PROSPERO CRD42021274656), with a Triphala subgroup.
For the Triphala subgroup, the pooled plaque-index effect was SMD −0.65 (95% CI −1.32 to 0.03), i.e. the confidence interval crossed zero; authors described herbal agents as 'as good as control'.[11]
Limitations: Pooled estimate for Triphala was not statistically significant; mixed products and comparators.
RCTEvidence: moderate
Oral health – school-based mouthwash trial
1,431 children aged 8–12; Triphala mouthwash 0.6% (n=457) vs chlorhexidine 0.1% (n=440) vs distilled water (n=412); 9 months.
Plaque scores fell progressively with both Triphala and chlorhexidine and rose with water; gingival effects were similar between Triphala and chlorhexidine; no significant difference between the two mouthwashes.[12]
Limitations: Allocation and blinding details limited in abstract; single region; surrogate outcomes.
RCTEvidence: moderate
Oral health – gingivitis in adults
90 adults with chronic generalised gingivitis; placebo vs Triphala vs chlorhexidine mouthwash twice daily; outcomes at 7, 30 and 60 days.
Triphala and chlorhexidine both reduced plaque index, gingival index, OHI-S and microbial counts more than placebo, with no significant difference between Triphala and chlorhexidine.[13]
Limitations: Single centre, 60 days, modest sample.
RCTEvidence: limited
Constipation
Open randomised controlled trial, 80 adults with chronic constipation (40 per arm; 34 and 38 completed); Triphala Churna 3–6 g at night with lukewarm water vs a prescribed Ayurvedic diet module; 4 weeks; National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur (CTRI/2019/09/021411).
Both groups improved significantly from baseline on bowel parameters; the diet group had greater improvement in weekly bowel frequency and colic pain, and groups were otherwise similar. No adverse effects reported.[14]
Limitations: Open-label, no placebo arm, small sample, Triphala used as the active control rather than tested against placebo.
observationalEvidence: preliminary
Constipation and digestive complaints
Clinical study, 160 patients aged 16–52 given an HPTLC-standardised Triphala formulation for 45 days (randomisation and control procedures not described in the abstract).
Stool amount, frequency and consistency improved in the Triphala group, along with reported reductions in flatulence, abdominal pain and hyperacidity; no adverse effects observed.[15]
Limitations: Design details unclear from available record; subjective scoring; published in a small journal; not placebo-controlled as far as can be seen.
observationalEvidence: preliminary
Functional constipation (Triphala-containing combination)
Open-label single-arm study, 34 patients, 14 days, proprietary powder containing isabgol husk, senna extract and Triphala extract.
Weekly bowel movements rose from 10.19 to 18.29, and stool form and straining improved; well tolerated.[16]
Limitations: No control group; product also contained senna and psyllium, so effects cannot be attributed to Triphala.
RCTEvidence: preliminary
Gut microbiota
Double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot; 31 healthy adults randomised to Triphala, manjistha or placebo 2,000 mg/day for 4 weeks; 16S rRNA profiling (Triphala n=9 completers).
Responses were highly individual and no taxa were uniformly altered; trends toward lower Firmicutes:Bacteroidetes ratio, more Akkermansia muciniphila and reduced Rikenellaceae with herb supplementation.[17]
Limitations: Very small pilot; microbiome surrogate outcomes only; no clinical endpoints.
systematic reviewEvidence: limited
Lipids, blood glucose and body weight
Systematic review of 12 RCTs (749 participants) of Triphala on lipid profile, blood glucose and anthropometric measures.
Six studies reported reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides; five reported reductions in body weight, BMI and waist circumference in obese patients; fasting glucose fell in diabetic patients but not in people without diabetes. Authors call for large well-designed RCTs.[19]
Limitations: No meta-analysis; heterogeneous products and doses; small trials.
RCTEvidence: limited
Hypercholesterolaemia (null result)
Double-blind placebo-controlled RCT, 90 adults at low–moderate cardiovascular risk, Guggulu + Triphala three times daily for 3 months, 3-month follow-up (Italy).
No better effect than placebo on total or LDL cholesterol, BMI or waist circumference (LDL fell ~4.8–4.9% in both arms).[18]
Limitations: Tested a combination with guggulu, not Triphala alone; short duration.
RCTEvidence: preliminary
Scalp seborrhoea (oral)
Patient- and assessor-blinded placebo-controlled trial, 80 completers aged 14–50; Triphala 1 g twice daily (standardised to gallic acid) vs wheat-flour placebo for 8 weeks (Iran).
Triphala group showed 25.34 points (95% CI 0.39–50.29; p=0.047) more improvement in Sebumeter scalp sebum scores and higher satisfaction than placebo.[20]
Limitations: Single trial; confidence interval wide and near the null.
These studies explain possible mechanisms. They do not show the same effect in people.