Trial reportClinical oral investigations2019
Clinical efficacy of new α-bisabolol mouthwashes in postoperative complications of maxillofacial surgeries: a randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Situ Gel ContainingMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Overview on Adjunct Ingredients Used in Hydroxyapatite-Based Oral Care Products.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Health Benefits, Pharmacological Effects, Molecular Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Potential of α-Bisabolol.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Article
- Therapeutic Agents for the Treatment of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders: Progress and Perspective.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of α-bisabolol (BISA)-based mouthwashes in the oral hygiene of patients submitted to oral and maxillofacial surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized, controlled, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted with 30 patients, undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery. Three types of mouthwashes were developed, based at 0.12% chlorhexidine, 0.5% BISA, and 0.12% chlorhexidine + 0.5% BISA. The patients were evaluated in the preoperative and postoperative period, divided into three groups according to the mouthwash to be used. In the postoperative period, the oral hygiene quality of the patients was evaluated through the simplified oral hygiene index; the healing of the wounds was evaluated observing the presence of suture dehiscence and/or infection, and the pain was established using the Visual Analogue Scale. The antiseptic effect of the mouthwashes was evaluated in vitro.
resultsThere were no differences in the efficacy of BISA-containing mouthwashes for oral hygiene, healing, and pain, compared to chlorhexidine based at 0.12%. There were no differences in the antiseptic activity of chlorhexidine and chlorhexidine + α-bisabolol-based mouthwashes.
conclusionThe results indicate that BISA-based mouthwashes have clinical efficacy, in the improvement of oral hygiene and wound healing, as well as in the reduction of postoperative pain. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Considering that BISA has analgesic, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties, it is relevant to evaluate the efficacy of BISA-based mouthwashes in the oral hygiene of patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery, seeking a better postoperative recovery.
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.