Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Effect of combined boric acid and chlorhexidine mouthwashes on postoperative complications and periodontal healing after impacted third molar surgery: a-double blind randomized study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effects of hydrogen peroxide (Nanosil) and chlorhexidine mouthwashes on healing and pain after impacted mandibular third molar surgery: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Ingredients in Commercially Available Mouthwashes.International dental journal · 2024Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of different concentrations of boric acid (BA) combined with chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash on postoperative complications and periodontal healing following impacted third molar surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 80 patients were randomly divided into eight groups. The patients in the study groups received different concentrations of BA ranging from 0.1% to 2.5% combined with CHX or 2% BA mouthwash alone. The control group received CHX mouthwash alone. The scores of self-reported pain and jaw dysfunction, trismus, edema, number of analgesics used, and periodontal parameters were compared between the groups.
results2.5% BA + CHX group had significantly lower pain and facial swelling values during the follow-up period. 2% BA + CHX group reported significantly lower jaw dysfunction scores on the fourth and fifth postoperative days. The control group showed significantly higher values for pain, jaw dysfunction, and facial swelling than other groups. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding trismus, analgesic use, and periodontal variables.
conclusionsThe combination of higher concentrations of BA with CHX was more effective in reducing pain, jaw dysfunction, and swelling following impacted third molar surgery than CHX mouthwash alone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The combination of BA and CHX showed better results than the gold standard CHX mouthwash in reducing postoperative complications related to surgical removal of impacted third molars without any adverse effects. This new combination can be an effective alternative to traditional mouthwashes after impacted third molar surgery to ensure oral hygiene.
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.