ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of postoperative bleeding and pain following tooth extraction in patients using direct oral anticoagulants: a prospective case-control study with blinded evaluation.
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.
- Development of ready-to-use tranexamic acid gauze as a hemostatic material for oral surgery: fabrication, hemostasis, and shelf-life.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Impact of NSAIDs on post-operative bleeding in minor dental and oral surgery: A clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients prescribed anticoagulants, even a seemingly uncomplicated extraction can pose a significant clinical risk of protracted or substantial bleeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative bleeding, pain scores, and oral healing parameters in patients undergoing tooth extractions while continuing direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, compared to healthy controls.
methodsA prospective, single-blind case-control study was conducted involving 211 patients receiving DOAC therapy (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) and 219 healthy control participants without anticoagulant therapy. Postoperative bleeding was assessed using a five-level bleeding grade on day 7, alongside pain evaluation via the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and clinical assessment of erythema, edema, suppuration, and bone exposure. The data were analysed using Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests. Significance level was considered as 0.05.
resultsMinimal postoperative bleeding was observed in most patients, regardless of anticoagulation status. However, higher bleeding grades were more common in the DOAC group, particularly among rivaroxaban (grade 2–2 in 6.9% and grade 3 in 13.8%) and edoxaban (3.6% and 7.3%, respectively) takers. Pain scores were similar across groups (mean VAS: case group 4.01 ± 2.01, control group 3.95 ± 2.04; p = 0.848). Erythema/edema rates did not significantly differ between groups (p = 0.930), whereas bone exposure was more frequent in the DOAC group (p = 0.039). No significant differences in suppuration rates were found (p = 0.548).
conclusionsContinuing DOAC therapy during tooth extractions appears clinically safe when meticulous surgical techniques and local hemostatic measures are employed. Although bleeding severity may vary among different DOACs, overall outcomes remain manageable. These findings support an individualized, risk-based perioperative approach rather than routine anticoagulant discontinuation.
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.