Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Patient-reported outcome measures comparing povidone iodine rinse and chlorhexidine rinse for dental implant therapy: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report 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 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of povidone-iodine rinse and chlorhexidine rinse for patients undergoing dental implant treatments, as well as their bacteriostatic efficacy. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients needing implant or bone augmentation surgery were randomized into two groups: povidone-iodine(PVP-I) and chlorhexidine(CHX). On the first day after surgery, pain levels were assessed by Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to compare the two mouthwashes. At two weeks post-surgery, wound healing was evaluated using the early wound healing index. Finally, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were employed to compare each mouthwash's flavor, texture, and whether it caused irritation or mucosal staining. The significance of intergroup differences was tested using both an intention to treat and a per-protocol analysis.
resultsA total of 83 patients(with a median age of 43, 49 females) were enrolled and randomized. In general, both rinses were similarly favorable in terms of patient comfort. Notably, the postoperative pain NRS was significantly lower in the PVP-I group (1.68 ± 0.82) than in the control group (2.55 ± 1.38, p < 0.01). Regarding to wound healing, there was no significant difference in the Early Healing Index (EHI) between the two groups (Z = 0.351, p = 0.725). Regarding PROMs, at day 7, the swelling reduction was significantly greater in the PVP-I group (p = 0.031). Additionally, fewer participants in the PVP-I group (7%) reported mucosal irritation compared to the CHX group (29%) (p < 0.05), while other PROMs showed no significant differences in both groups.
conclusionsWithin the scope of this trial, PVP-I rinse demonstrated superior patient comfort (significantly lower postoperative pain intensity, less mucosal irritation, and greater swelling reduction at day 7) compared to CHX rinse, though both rinses showed comparable wound healing outcomes. PVP-I may serve as an alternative for dental implant therapy, but all mouthrinses should be used judiciously under clinical guidance.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( www.chictr.org.cn ) under registration number ChiCTR2500098491 on 10/03/2025 (retrospectively registered).
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.