ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Efficacy of gelatamp in controlling the postoperative sequelae following mandibular posterior teeth extraction - A split-mouth study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Split-Mouth, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial of a Gelatin Hemostatic Dental Sponge Containing Aloe Vera Nanoparticles for Controlling Bleeding After Mandibular Posterior Teeth Extraction.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Trial
- Expert consensus on the management of third molar health.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- [Implant restoration for patient with two oroantral communications treated by staged surgeries: a case report].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025Article
- Local Single-Dose Teriparatide Administration for BRONJ Prevention: Insights from a Rat Model Study.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2024Article
- Efficacy of a New Hemostatic Dental Sponge in Controlling Bleeding, Pain, and Dry Socket Following Mandibular Posterior Teeth Extraction-A Split-Mouth Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of gelatamp on soft tissue healing, bleeding, and pain following mandibular posterior teeth extraction. Methods: This study was designed as a split-mouth, prospective randomized double-blind controlled trial conducted in a single tertiary care center. Thirty-five subjects indicated for routine mandibular posterior teeth extraction were divided into two groups using the lottery technique: the experimental group (n = 30), which received gelatamp after extraction, and the control group (n = 30), which received no intervention. The primary outcomes included soft tissue healing(Landry, Turnbull, Howley index) and Pain(VAS score). The secondary outcomes assessed were bleeding(Maani et al. index) and swelling(Sauza and Consone assessment). Result: The results showed a statistically significant difference in soft tissue healing on the third and seventh days in the experimental group (p ≤ 0.05) than in the control group. A significant difference in bleeding scores at 5 min, 30 min, and 2 h postoperatively in the study group (p ≤ 0.05) was noted. There was no significant difference between the groups for pain on the first, third or seventh day postoperatively (p ≤ 0.05). The swelling assessment also showed no significant changes (p = 0.831) for the study and the control group. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, gelatamp can be effectively used to reduce postoperative sequelae such as bleeding with better soft tissue healing following extractions and surgical removal of tooth.
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.