Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32956135›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of nursing research : JNR2020

Preventing Alveolar Osteitis After Molar Extraction Using Chlorhexidine Rinse and Gel: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Chia-Hui Wang, Shu-Hui Yang, Hsiu-Ju Jen, Jui-Chen Tsai, Hsi-Kuei Lin, El-Wui Loh

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of nursing research : JNR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chia-Hui Wang
Shu-Hui Yang
Hsiu-Ju JenBSN, RN, Head Nurse, Department of Nursing, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital, and Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, ROC.
Jui-Chen TsaiMSN, RN, Consultant, Department of Nursing, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital, and Adjunct Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, ROC.
Hsi-Kuei LinDDS, Department of Dentistry, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital, and Lecturer, School of Dentistry, College of Oral Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, ROC.
El-Wui LohPhD, Joint Appointment Medical Researcher, Center for Evidence-Based Health Care and Shared Decision Making Resource Center, Department of Medical Research, and Department of Dentistry, Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital; Researcher, Cochrane Taiwan, Taipei Medical University; and Assistant Professor, Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan, ROC.
Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlveolar osteitis (AO) may occur after molar extraction. Chlorhexidine (CHX) rinse and CHX gel are widely used to prevent AO. Although previous meta-analyses support the effectiveness of both CHX rinse and CHX gel in preventing AO, important issues regarding these two formulations have not been addressed adequately in the literature. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted to determine the effectiveness of CHX rinse and CHX gel in preventing AO.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials published before June 2018. The risk ratio (RR) was used to estimate the pooled effect of AO incidence using a random-effect model.

resultsThe RRs of AO in patients treated with 0.12% CHX rinse (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.41, 0.72]) and 0.2% CHX rinse (RR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.52, 1.35]) were significantly lower than in those treated with the control. Moreover, a significantly lower RR was identified in patients treated with 0.2% CHX gel (RR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.34, 0.64]) than in those treated with the control. When CHX products of different concentrations were grouped together, patients treated with CHX rinse showed an RR of AO of 0.61 (95% CI [0.48, 0.78]) and those treated with CHX gel showed an RR of AO of 0.44 (95% CI [0.43, 0.65]). On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three trials that compared CHX rinse and CHX gel directly showed a significantly lower RR of AO in patients treated with CHX rinse than in those treated with CHX gel (RR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.34, 0.96]). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results support the effectiveness of both CHX rinse and gel in reducing the risk of AO after molar extraction. Each formulation provides unique benefits in terms of ease of application and cost. On the basis of the results of this study, the authors recommend that CHX gel be used immediately after molar extraction because of the convenience and cost-effectiveness of this treatment and that CHX rinse be used by the patient after discharge at home in combination with appropriate health education and case management.

Indexed as

ChlorhexidineDental CareDry SocketHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicChlorhexidine

Identifiers

PMID32956135
PMCPMC7808365
OpenAlexW3087595474

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.