Trial reportDrugs in R&D2008
Efficacy of a mucoadhesive patch compared with an oral solution for treatment of aphthous stomatitis.
Trial report in Drugs in R&D, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mucoadhesive Drug Delivery Systems for Oral Chronic Inflammatory Mucosal Diseases. The Future is Already Present. A Systematic Review.Oral diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Topical Licorice for Aphthous: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2023Pooled it
- [Topical pain therapy in oral mucositis: a systematic review].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2013Pooled it
- Urban legends: recurrent aphthous stomatitis.Oral diseases · 2011Pooled it
- The value of local botulinum toxin A injection in the treatment of the pain of aphthous ulcer.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2009Trial
- Development and Characterization of an Oral Mucoadhesive Patch Containing Amla (International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- A novel formulation for radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis: Triamcinolone acetonide mucoadhesive film.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2019Article
- Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Quick-Dissolving Polymeric Vaginal Films Delivering the Antiretroviral IQP-0528 for Preexposure Prophylaxis.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Quality of life in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis treated with a mucoadhesive patch containing citrus essential oil.Patient preference and adherence · 2016Article
- Development and in vitro-in vivo evaluation of fenretinide-loaded oral mucoadhesive patches for site-specific chemoprevention of oral cancer.Pharmaceutical research · 2011Article
- Mucoadhesive drug delivery systems.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a mucoadhesive patch compared with a pain-relieving oral solution for the treatment of aphthous stomatitis.
methodsPatients with active aphthous stomatitis were randomly treated either once a day with a mucoadhesive patch containing citrus oil and magnesium salts (n = 26) or three times a day with an oral solution containing benzocaine and compound benzoin tincture (n = 22). All patients were instructed to apply the medication until pain had resolved, and completed a questionnaire detailing multiple clinical parameters followed by an evaluation of the treatment.
resultsThe mucoadhesive patch was found to be more effective than the oral solution in terms of healing time (mean +/- SD: 36.0 +/- 22.8 hours vs 134.7 +/- 57.7, p < 0.001) and pain intensity after 12 and 24 hours (3.7 +/- 2.8 vs 6.3 +/- 2.6, p = 0.003, and 2.3 +/- 2.7 vs 5.7 +/- 2.5, p < 0.001, respectively). Local adverse effects 1 hour after treatment were significantly (p < 0.01) less frequent among the mucoadhesive patch patients compared with the oral solution patients.
conclusionsThe mucoadhesive patch was found to be significantly more effective and better tolerated than the oral solution in the treatment of aphthous stomatitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.