ArticleBMC oral health2025
Vacuum sealing drainage combined with continuous irrigation for the treatment of oral and maxillofacial abscesses-a retrospective study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Clinical application of vacuum sealing drainage in patients with idiopathic granulomatous mastitis.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Article
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
objectiveThe conventional treatment for oral and maxillofacial abscesses involves incision and drainage. However, postoperative dressing changes often cause pain and other discomfort to patients. Therefore, we explored the use of vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) technology for treating oral and maxillofacial abscesses. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the efficacy and value of VSD combined with continuous irrigation using physiological saline to treat oral and maxillofacial abscesses. MATERIALS AND
methodsData from 115 patients with oral and maxillofacial abscesses were collected. Patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment strategy: 68 received traditional treatment (Group 1) and 47 were treated with the VSD device (Group 2). The treatment period, incision length and numerical rating scale (NRS) score were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications were also recorded.
resultsAll patients were successfully treated and discharged. Group 2 had a longer treatment duration (10.00 ± 5.87 days) than Group 1 (8.07 ± 3.47 days; p < 0.05) but demonstrated shorter incision lengths (3.04 ± 0.31 cm vs. 3.57 ± 0.44 cm; p < 0.01) and lower NRS scores on postoperative day 1 (1.83 ± 0.70 vs. 2.96 ± 0.83; p < 0.01). Complications included two allergic reactions to adhesive material in Group 2 and higher reoperation rates (Group 2: 4 cases; Group 1: 1 case).
conclusionVSD treatment for localized oral and maxillofacial abscesses is comfortable for patients and can reduce the length of surgical incisions. However, the therapeutic effect for maxillofacial multispace infection is still controversial.
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.