ArticleMaxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery2020
Non-inferiority study of the efficacy of two hyaluronic acid products in post-extraction sockets of impacted third molars.
Article in Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hyaluronic acid in tooth extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical trials.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of Hyaluronic Acid on Socket Healing After Lower Impacted Third Molar Tooth Extraction in 40 Dental Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Trial
- Targeting the Oral Mucosa: Emerging Drug Delivery Platforms and the Therapeutic Potential of Glycosaminoglycans.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Overview on Adjunct Ingredients Used in Hydroxyapatite-Based Oral Care Products.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) is well known to exert an anti-inflammatory effect during oral wound healing and is commonly applied after tooth extraction. However, no double-blind randomized controlled study comparing two hyaluronate mouthwash products has been conducted so far. The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze the efficacy of Mucobarrier® and Aloclair® in terms of clinical symptoms.
resultsA total of 112 patients were randomly assigned to assess the degree of discomfort, pain reduction, redness, burning sensation, and swelling between two groups on the day of surgery and 7 days later in a double blind test, with a total 56 Aloclair patients and 56 Mucobarrier patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall discomfort, degree of pain reduction, redness, burning sensation, and swelling between the Mucobarrier and Aloclair groups.
conclusionThe local application of hyaluronic acid mouth wash after wisdom tooth extraction is beneficial in reducing overall discomfort and pain reduction, and the clinical utility of Mucobarrier® is no different from Aloclair®.
trial registrationInstitutional Review Board of Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 2-2018-0036. Registered 10 September 2018-prospectively registered, https://eirb.yuhs.ac/.
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.