Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25475768›Full record

Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2015

A randomized clinical trial compared the effect of intra-alveolar 0.2 % Chlorohexidine bio-adhesive gel versus 0.12% Chlorohexidine rinse in reducing alveolar osteitis following molar teeth extractions.

Nedal-Abdullah Abu-Mostafa, Abdullah Alqahtani, Mohammed Abu-Hasna, Ahmed Alhokail, Ammar Aladsani

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02678104 (The Influence of Intra-alveolar Application of Honey on Healing Following Molar Teeth Extraction), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02678104 phase2unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

The Influence of Intra-alveolar Application of Honey on Healing Following Molar Teeth Extraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiyadh Colleges of Dentistry and PharmacyRan2016 to 2017Enrolled100ConditionsDry SocketArmsTooth extraction, Chlorhexidine mouth wash, Intra-alveolar application of Manuka Honey
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Angiogenesis and the prevention of alveolar osteitis: a review study.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2018
    Review
  9. Dry Socket Etiology, Diagnosis, and Clinical Treatment Techniques.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nedal-Abdullah Abu-MostafaPO.BOX: 84891, Riyadh 11681, Saudi Arabia, nabumostafa@gmail.com.
Abdullah Alqahtani
Mohammed Abu-Hasna
Ahmed Alhokail
Ammar Aladsani
Riyadh Elm University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate socket healing, incidence of acute alveolar ostieitis (AO) and associated pain following single molar tooth extraction in patients who receive intra-alveolar 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel, and those who rinsed with 0.12 % CHX rinse. STUDY

designA prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted on two parallel groups of patients. Group 1 (141 patients): Rinsed with 0.12 % CHX rinse from the second postoperative day, two times daily for a week. Group2 (160 patients): Who had direct intra-alveolar application of 0.2% CHX gel and day 3 post-operatively. The socket was evaluated 3 and 7 day postoperatively for the presence of AO by checking probing tenderness in the socket, empty socket, food debris, halitosis and pain assessment by VAS.

resultsForty-eight AO cases were diagnosed out of 301 extractions (15.9%). In Group 1, 25 cases were found (17.7%) while 23 cases were found in Group 2 (14.4%). The difference was not statistically significant (p=0.428). Presence of empty socket and food debris in Group 1 were higher than in Group 2 but the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.390 & p = 0.415). Occurrence of halitosis in Group 2 was more than Group 1, but the difference was not significant (p= 0.440). Statistical significance was found between AO in extraction done by root separation (29%) and those routinely extracted (12.3 %) (p=0.001).

conclusionPostoperative evaluation of molar extraction sockets that received direct intra-alveolar application of 0.2% CHX gel showed insignificant less occurrence of AO when compared with 0.12 % CHX rinse.

Indexed as

AdhesivesChlorhexidineDry SocketFemaleGelsHumansMaleMolarMouthwashesProspective StudiesTooth ExtractionTooth SocketAdhesivesChlorhexidineGelsMouthwashes

Identifiers

PMID25475768
PMCPMC4320426
OpenAlexW2158667031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.