ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of Universal Periotome and Conventional Techniques in Single-Rooted Tooth Extractions: A Randomized Controlled Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2025. 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.
- Minimally invasive tooth extraction: the science and clinical strategies of socket preservation: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tooth extraction, one of the most commonly performed dental procedures, is often associated with trauma to the dentoalveolar complex, resulting in pain, gingival laceration, and alveolar bone loss. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled study included 100 patients requiring nonsurgical extraction of single-rooted maxillary or mandibular teeth. The patients were divided into two groups: Group A (test group, n = 50) underwent extractions using a universal periotome, while Group B (control group, n = 50) underwent extractions with a periosteal elevator. Pain was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale at 3, 6, and 24 hours and on the 7 Results: The mean duration of surgery was significantly shorter in Group A (4.97 ± 0.96 minutes) compared to Group B (11.47 ± 1.66 minutes; Conclusion: The universal periotome demonstrated superior outcomes compared to conventional techniques, significantly reducing operative time, postoperative pain, gingival lacerations, and analgesic consumption. This minimally invasive technique preserves alveolar and gingival architecture, making it an effective alternative for single-rooted tooth extractions.
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.