ArticleMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Clinical applications of chlorhexidine in oral wound healing: Scoping review of current evidence and research gaps.
Article in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2026. 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.
- Clinical Practices and Attitudes of Dental Practitioners in Managing Alveolar Osteitis: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Yemen.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis scoping review aimed to comprehensively synthesize the current evidence and gaps regarding the use of chlorhexidine (CHX) in oral wound healing after surgical procedures. MATERIAL AND
methodsPRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines were followed. A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted to identify primary-level studies published before July-2024.
resultsSixty-six studies, encompassing 6,763 patients met eligibility criteria. Third molar extractions were the most studied procedures (n=44), where CHX use consistently improved wound healing, significantly reduced the risk of alveolar osteitis and alleviated postoperative pain, with over 70% of studies reporting favorable outcomes. CHX application, across different concentrations and pharmaceutical forms, was consistently associated with better wound healing, with gels (n=29) and rinses (n=36) showing favorable results in 75% and 80% of studies, respectively; both 0.12% (n=21, 72.7%) and 0.20% (n=41, 81.3%) concentrations proved effective, with short-term postoperative regimens (7 days, n=27) or intraoperative application (n=22) emerging as the most reliable protocols. Moreover, combinations of CHX with adjuvant agents, particularly chitosan (n=4) and hyaluronic acid (n=5), demonstrated synergistic benefits, although the number of available trials remains limited.
conclusionsIn conclusion, current evidence supports the application of CHX as an effective and low-cost adjuvant in optimizing oral wound healing and preventing postoperative complications, singularly alveolar osteítis and postoperative pain after third molar extractions. Both gel and rinse formulations, as well as concentrations of 0.12% and 0.20%, have been shown to be effective, with indications related to clinical context and duration of use. Finally, CHX associatiations with chitosan and hialuronic are promising, although still based on a low evidence level. Future well-designed clinical trials are needed to address current evidence gaps, standardize administration protocols and further explore synergistic combinations.
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.