Trial reportJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Comparative evaluation of effect of microcurrent electrical stimulation on acupoints to control gag reflex in patients receiving prosthodontic treatment: An
Trial report in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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
Aims: The aim of this study is to see if microcurrent electrical stimulation on two acupoints, auricular and Hegus, can help patients prevent their gag reflex. Settings and Design: This was an in vivo cross-sectional study. Materials and Methods: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to three groups: A, B, or C, of ten patients present in each group. Group A and Group B undergone electroacupuncture (microcurrent electrical stimulation) using electroacupuncture device on auricular point and Hegus point (Li 4), respectively, for 1 min and Group C formed the placebo group, point Shou San Li (Li 10). The gag severity index and the gag prevention index were used to measure the gag reflex, which was done in two steps. Statistical Analysis Used: SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL, USA) version 24 software was used for statistical analysis. Paired t-test, one-way analysis of variance test, post hoc Bonferroni test was used to analyse and compare the data. Results: It was found that Point A and Point B were significantly effective in reducing the severity of gag reflex. Point C demonstrated insignificant results. In addition, Point B (Hegus [Li4]) is more effective than Point A (auricular) in controlling the gag reflex in patients within the set age group of 20-70 years of age. Conclusions: Microcurrent electrical stimulation is a useful adjuvant in the treatment of unfavorable gag reflexes during routine dental procedures. Point Hegus and point auricular acupuncture are both useful in decreasing the severity of gag reflex, with point Hegus being more effective than point auricular.
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.