Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341268›Full record

Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2018

Postoperative effects on lower third molars of using mouthwashes with super-oxidized solution versus 0.2% chlorhexidine gel: A randomized double-blind trial.

A Coello-Gómez, S Navarro-Suárez, J-M Diosdado-Cano, F Azcárate-Velazquez, P Bargiela-Pérez, M-A Serrera-Figallo, D Torres-Lagares, J-L Gutiérrez-Pérez

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A Coello-GómezOral Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Seville, Seville, SPAIN, danieltl@us.es.
S Navarro-Suárez
J-M Diosdado-Cano
F Azcárate-Velazquez
P Bargiela-Pérez
M-A Serrera-Figallo
D Torres-Lagares
J-L Gutiérrez-Pérez
Universidad de Sevilla · ESHospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe main objective of the present study is to evaluate the effects and possible benefits with regard to the postoperative period of lower third molar extractions, comparing the intraalveolar application of a bioadhesive gel of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) to the use of a mouthwash with a super-oxidized solution, (SOS) Dermacyn® Wound Care (Oculus Innovative Sciences lnc., California, USA). MATERIAL AND

methodsA randomized double-blind study was carried out in 20 patients with a split-mouth design, with a total of 40 extractions of symmetrically impacted bilateral lower third molars. Patients were divided into two groups, a control group (C = 20) and an experimental group (D = 20). Any infectious complications, wound healing, plaque accumulation in the stitches, and presence of trismus and inflammation were evaluated using the distance between different facial points, at three, eight, and fifteen days after extraction. Pain, swelling, and amount of analgesics taken were evaluated using the VAS scale throughout the 15 days following extraction. Tolerance to treatment was evaluated using a verbal scale. Results were statistically compared using the Student's t- and chi-squared tests.

resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to infectious complications, swelling, or wound healing. Use of analgesics and self-reported pain levels were slightly lower in the experimental group than in the control group during days 6 and 7 of the study (p < 0.05). The global treatment tolerance was satisfactory and similar in both groups.

conclusionsBoth CHX and SOS are effective at improving the postoperative period after extraction of lower third molars.

Indexed as

Tooth ExtractionAdultChlorhexidineDouble-Blind MethodDrug CombinationsEdemaFemaleGelsHumansHypochlorous AcidMaleMandibleMolar, ThirdMouthwashesPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainChlorhexidinedermacynDrug CombinationsGelsHypochlorous AcidMouthwashesSodium Hypochlorite

Identifiers

PMID30341268
PMCPMC6260999
OpenAlexW2897548572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.