ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2022
The Effectiveness of 0.2% Chlorhexidine Gel on Early Wound Healing after Tooth Extraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Localised 0.2% chlorhexidine irrigation delivery system versus oral antibiotics in reducing postoperative complications in the surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM). - a randomised controlled trial.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2024Trial
- The association between sleep quality and postoperative pain after half-impacted mandibular third molar extraction: comparison of three statistical models.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- In Vitro Model to Evaluate the Development of Discolorations on Human Enamel Caused by Treatment with Mouth Rinses and Black Tea Considering Brushing.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Pre-emptive Single Dose of Intramasseteric Administration of Dexamethasone Versus Methylprednisolone in Surgical Extraction of Impacted Mandibular Third Molars: Prospective Split-Mouth, Randomised Triple Blinded Clinical Study.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Factors Influencing Post-Operative Complications following Tooth Extraction: A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 2024Review
- Prophylactic therapy for prevention of surgical site infection after extraction of third molar: An overview of reviews.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2023Review
- Efficacy of Chlorhexidine after Oral Surgery Procedures on Wound Healing: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel on wound healing after tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsA single blind, randomized controlled trial was performed recruiting 32 participants who underwent dental extractions. Patients were randomly allocated for CHX group or placebo group. The primary outcomes were wound closure measured with calipers and healings were assessed by Landry et al index after 7 days of topical application of allocated gels on extraction sites.
resultsThe wound closures were greater in CHX group compared with placebo group and healing scores were correlated with the use of CHX gel (
conclusionIn a population of healthy nonsmoker adults, application of 0.2% CHX gel twice a day for 7 days after tooth extraction has a beneficial effect on wound healing.
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.