ArticleCureus2025
Assessment of the Efficacy of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Mouth Rinse in Preventing Alveolar Osteitis Following Mandibular Molar Extraction.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlveolar osteitis (AO) is a common, painful post-extraction complication, particularly following mandibular molar removal. Clinicians widely recommend 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouth rinse to prevent AO, but studies on its use in non-surgical extractions with early wound healing assessment are still limited.
aimThe study aims to assess the efficacy of 0.12% CHX gluconate mouth rinse in preventing AO and enhancing early soft tissue healing after non-surgical mandibular molar extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, randomized controlled trial enrolled 60 adult patients, equally allocated to a study group (0.12% CHX rinse, twice daily for seven days starting 24 hours postoperative) and a control group (standard care, no rinse). AO was diagnosed on days three and seven. Early wound healing was evaluated on day seven via the Early Wound Healing Score (EWHS), assessing clinical signs of re-epithelialization (CSR), clinical signs of hemostasis (CSH), and clinical signs of inflammation (CSI). Statistical analysis used Fisher's exact test for AO incidence and the Mann-Whitney U test for EWHS (p<0.05, significant).
resultsThe CHX group recorded zero AO cases (100% success) compared with four cases (13.33%) in controls (p=0.041). Mean EWHS was higher in the study group (7.33 ± 2.12 vs. 6.73 ± 2.36; p=0.198, not significant). About 53.3% of cases in the CHX group achieved excellent healing compared with 36.7% in the control group, with zero poor-healing cases compared with 13.3% in the control group. CSR scores were significantly higher (4.13 vs. 3.60), indicating enhanced epithelialization, while CSH and CSI scores were comparable between groups.
conclusionPostoperative use of 0.12% CHX mouth rinse is highly effective in preventing AO and demonstrates a clinically meaningful improvement in early epithelial wound healing. Its simplicity, low cost, and high patient compliance make it an ideal prophylactic strategy for routine clinical implementation.
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.