ReviewOdontology2026
Impact of mucoadhesive tablets on pain reduction and ulcer healing in recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Odontology, 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.
- Can artificial intelligence training improve clinical decision-making during deep caries excavation?Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to explore the potential effects of mucoadhesive tablets (MATs) on the pain and ulcer size outcomes in patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). A systematic search of EMBASE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MATs with placebo were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Four RCTs were included in the qualitative review and only three of them were included in the quantitative analysis. For ulcer diameter, MATs demonstrated a statistically significant reduction at day 5 (MD -1.97 mm, 95% CI -3.88 to -0.05; p = 0.044; I
Indexed as
Identifiers
41706378What 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.