ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
Formulation of a Jasmine Grandiflorum containing mucoadhesive and evaluation of its healing effect on oral biopsy ulcers.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhibitory effects ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Effects of natural extracts in the treatment of oral ulcers: A systematic review of evidence from experimental studies in animals.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present research aimed to explore the effect of a mucoadhesive containing Jasminum grandiflorum leaves on the process of oral wound healing in animal samples. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present double-blinded research was conducted on animals. To this aim, 28 rats were randomly selected and assigned to groups of control and experiment. The lesion was created by punch no. 3 in the midline of the mandibular labial mucosa of all mice. Each group received either a medicine or a placebo exclusively coded. The extent of contraction and wound healing was clinically assessed. To compare the two research groups, chi-squared test, repeated-measure ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney U test were run. SPSS software was used to do the statistical analyses.
resultsStatistically significant differences were found between the percentage of wound contraction on the 3rd day (40.91% vs. 16.5%, p = 0.04) and the 7th day (92.9% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.05), wound recovery (57.1% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.05) and degree of inflammation on the 7th day (p = 0.00), type (p = 0.04) and thickness of epithelium (p = 0.00) and type of connective tissue (p = 0.00) on the 14th day.
conclusionInvestigations showed that the drug was more effective than the placebo in accelerating wound healing in clinical and histopathological terms. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Accelerating wound healing in dental treatments and oral ulcers can also affect the quality of life of individuals.
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.