ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of surgicel and gelfoam in controlling post-extraction bleeding in patients on anticoagulant therapy: a clinical 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of ready-to-use tranexamic acid gauze as a hemostatic material for oral surgery: fabrication, hemostasis, and shelf-life.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Local Hemostasis as the Critical Enabler for Safe Antithrombotic Therapy in Dentistry-Navigating Future Frontiers and Innovative Concepts.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Comprehensive Review of SURGICEL®: Efficacy, Applications, and Radiological Insights in Surgery.Cureus · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBleeding after tooth extraction is a significant challenge, particularly in patients taking anticoagulants such as aspirin and warfarin, as the use of these medications increases the risk of prolonged bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the hemostatic agents, Surgicel and Gelfoam, in controlling bleeding and improving healing after extraction in this patient group.
methodsA clinical study was conducted on 40 patients, divided into two groups based on the type of anticoagulant used (aspirin or warfarin). Each patient received treatment with different hemostatic dressings: Gelfoam was applied to one side and Surgicel to the other. Bleeding was assessed using the VIBe scale, and the rate of gingival healing was measured using the Gingival Healing Index (GHI) on days three (D3) and seven (D7). Pain was also assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and late bleeding rates were analyzed 24 h after extraction.
resultsThe results showed that Surgicel was more effective than Gelfoam in achieving hemostasis and reducing delayed bleeding (p < 0.05). Patients using Surgicel also reported faster improvement in tissue healing compared to patients using Gelfoam, particularly on day 7 after extraction. Additionally, pain scores were significantly lower in patients treated with Surgicel compared to Gelfoam, reflecting its role in improving patient comfort and accelerating healing.
conclusionsThis study supports the use of Surgicel as a more effective option for controlling bleeding and promoting tissue healing in patients taking anticoagulants, reducing the need for treatment adjustments that may increase the risk of thrombosis. The study recommends further studies to evaluate the long-term benefits of using different hemostatic agents in this patient population.
trial registrationThe trial was retrospectively registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN19155058) on 29 May 2025.
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.