Trial reportScientific reports2026
Evaluation of low level laser therapy and lidocaine versus chlorohexidine for the management of traumatic oral ulcers in children: a randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07138586 (Evaluation of Low Level Laser Therapy and Lidocaine Versus Chlorhexidine for the Management of Traumatic Oral Ulcers in Children), which is not on this 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.
Evaluation of Low Level Laser Therapy and Lidocaine Versus Chlorhexidine for the Management of Traumatic Oral Ulcers in Children: A Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Study
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT), lidocaine (LC) gel, and chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash in the management of traumatic oral ulcers in children, with respect to ulcer size, pain relief and parental satisfaction. Thirty children aged 6-14 years with clinically diagnosed traumatic oral ulcers were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 10 each): Group I (LLLT), Group II (LC), and Group III (CHX). Ulcer size was measured using a calibrated periodontal probe, pain intensity was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and parental satisfaction was evaluated using a Likert scale. Ulcer size reduction was greatest in Group I, followed by Group II and Group III, with statistically significant differences observed at day 5 (p = 0.0001) and day 7 (p = 0.0072). Group I also recorded the lowest VAS scores immediately, and at 2, 5, and 7 days (p = 0.0001) compared with the other groups. Parental satisfaction was significantly higher in the LLLT group compared with the LC and CHX groups (p = 0.006). LLLT demonstrated superior effectiveness in accelerating healing by reducing related size and pain in traumatic oral ulcers compared with LC gel and CHX mouthwash. Despite CHX being the standard approach for oral ulcer management, it showed the lowest efficacy. Parental acceptance of LLLT was high, with minimal discomfort related to treatment visits, supporting its potential as a favourable treatment modality in paediatric dental practice.Trial registration: On August 16, 2025, this study was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identification number NCT07138586 with URL; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07138586 .
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.