Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32613433›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021

Evaluation of local hemostatic efficacy after dental extractions in patients taking antiplatelet drugs: a randomized clinical trial.

Ylenia Brancaccio, Alessandro Antonelli, Selene Barone, Francesco Bennardo, Leonzio Fortunato, Amerigo Giudice

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ylenia BrancaccioDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Alessandro AntonelliDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Selene BaroneDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Francesco BennardoDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Leonzio FortunatoDepartment of Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Catanzaro, Italy.
Amerigo GiudiceDepartment of Health Sciences, Magna Graecia University of Catanzaro, Viale Europa, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy. a.giudice@unicz.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5091-6979
Magna Graecia University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical efficacy of four different local hemostatics in patients taking oral antiplatelet therapy, after multiple dental extractions without discontinuing drugs. MATERIALS AND

methodsStudy sample included 102 patients (mean age 64.1 ± 17.4 years) in treatment with oral antiplatelet agents needing multiple dental extractions. After surgery, the sockets were randomly sealing with suture alone (control group), hemostatic plug (HEM), advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF+), and leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). Primary outcomes were post-operative bleeding, wound healing index, and possible complications. Secondary outcomes were correlation between primary outcomes and patient's comorbidities and voluptuous habits. Descriptive statistics, bivariate comparisons, and logistic regression analysis were performed (p < 0.05).

resultsBoth A-PRF+ and L-PRF showed a reduced bleeding risk when compared with suture alone (OR = 0.09, p = 0.001 for A-PRF+; OR = 0.09, p = 0.005 for L-PRF). Only L-PRF showed a reduced risk for incomplete wound healing when compared with the control site (OR = 0.43, p = 0.019). Patients affected by hypertension (OR 3.91, p = 0.015) and diabetes (OR 3.24, p = 0.026) had the highest bleeding risk. Smoking (OR 4.30, p = 0.016) and diabetes (OR 3.79, p = 0.007) interfered with healing process.

conclusionL-PRF and A-PRF represent a valid alternative to the traditional hemostatics, reducing post-surgical bleeding and promoting wound healing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In patients taking antiplatelet drugs, different local hemostatics are useful to control potential post-operative bleeding and to favor wound healing. However, comorbidities and voluptuous habits may increase bleeding risk, interfering with healing process.

Indexed as

HemostaticsPlatelet-Rich FibrinAgedAged, 80 and overHumansMiddle AgedPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsTooth ExtractionWound HealingHemostaticsPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsAntiplatelet therapyA-PRFDental extractionsHemostatic agentsL-PRFWound healing

Identifiers

PMID32613433
OpenAlexW3039158943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.