Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2024
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.
Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe purpose of the study was to compare the efficacy of the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine irrigation and the oral antibiotics for the prevention of postoperative complication like pain, trismus, swelling and infection after the surgical extraction of IMTM. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomised, double blinded clinical trial was planned with two equal groups. Patients were randomly divided into two groups using computer-generated codes with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Group I (Control): Standard preoperative and postoperative systemic oral antibiotics and Group II (Study): No systemic antibiotics and Chlorhexidine irrigation local delivery. The primary outcomes evaluated were postoperative pain, mouth opening, swelling and infection. The secondary outcome variables were the number of analgesics and antibiotics taken by the patient in the postoperative period, the satisfaction of the patient and adverse events, were followed up regulary for 7 days postoperatively.
resultsA total of 84 patients, divided into two equal groups participated in the study. In intergroup comparison of swelling, the difference was non-significant on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 7, except for POD 3, where it showed significantly lower results in the antibiotic group (p = 0.012). However, there was no significant difference in pain found between both groups at any of the postoperative time points, and the study group had a lesser need for rescue analgesics than the control group. A statistically significant difference in incidence of dry socket was observed (p = 0.03) and gastrointestinal adverse symptoms, but it showed insignificant results for wound dehiscence and pus discharge. Also, patient satisfaction was higher in the study group.
conclusionsboth antibiotics and localised delivery demonstrated comparable results in terms of swelling, pain and trismus. However, with lesser adverse events, the localised chlorhexidine delivery with curved tips outperformed the antibiotic group.
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.