Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32433572›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

Effect of antiseptic gels in the microbiologic colonization of the suture threads after oral surgery.

Samuel Rodríguez Zorrilla, Andrés Blanco Carrión, Abel García García, Pablo Galindo Moreno, Xabier Marichalar Mendía, Rafael Seoane Prado, Antonio J Pérez Estévez, Mario Pérez-Sayáns

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IVRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel Rodríguez ZorrillaOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes). School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. samuel.rodriguez.zorrilla@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5869-1025
Andrés Blanco CarriónOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes). School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Abel García GarcíaOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes). School of Medicine and Dentistry. Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5911-5537
Pablo Galindo MorenoDepartment of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Xabier Marichalar MendíaDepartment of Stomatology II. School of Medicine and Dentistry, Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain.
Rafael Seoane PradoMicrobiology Unit. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8719-4503
Antonio J Pérez EstévezMicrobiology Unit. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Mario Pérez-SayánsOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes). School of Medicine and Dentistry. Health Research Institute of Santiago (IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-9868
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago · ESUniversidad de Granada · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three different bioadhesive gels were evaluated in a double-blind randomized clinical trial in which microbial growth in the suture thread was assessed following post-surgical application of the aforementioned gels. Also assessed in this trial were, the intensity of post-surgical pain as well as the degree of healing of the patients' surgical wounds. A total of 21 patients (with 42 wisdom teeth) participated in this trial. Chlorhexidine gel, chlorhexidine-chitosan gel, and hyaluronic acid gel were evaluated, with a neutral water-based gel serving as the control agent. The aerobic and facultative anaerobic bacterial recovery on blood agar was lower in the placebo group than in the experimental groups. The most significant difference (p = 0.04) was observed in the chlorhexidine-chitosan group. in which the growth of Blood Agar and Mitis Salivarius Agar was significantly higher than in the placebo group. The intensity of post-surgical pain was very similar among all the groups. Significantly better healing rates were observed in the patients treated with chlorhexidine-chitosan gel when compared with those who used the placebo gel (p = 0.03), and in particular when compared with those patients who used hyaluronic acid gel (p = 0.01). Through our microbiological analyses, we were able to conclude that none of the bioadhesive gels tested resulted in beneficial reductions in the bacterial/fungal populations. However, the healing rates of patients who were treated with chlorhexidine-chitosan were better than those of the patients who used either the placebo gel or the hyaluronic acid gel.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChitosanChlorhexidineDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGelsHumansHyaluronic AcidMalePain MeasurementPlacebosPostoperative PainSurgical Wound InfectionSuturesAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChitosanChlorhexidineGelsHyaluronic AcidPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID32433572
PMCPMC7239853
OpenAlexW3028331215

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.