ArticleCureus2026
Iodine-Based Wound Dressing Versus Antibiotic Therapy for Postoperative Symptom Relief in Third Molar Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis prospective, non-randomized comparative clinical study aimed to explore postoperative symptom outcomes associated with iodine-based wound dressings following third molar extraction, compared with conventional primary wound closure and postoperative antibiotic therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, non-randomized comparative clinical study was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Tartu University Hospital, between May 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023.A total of 68 patients undergoing third molar extraction were assigned to four groups based on postoperative management. Group A received antibiotic therapy, Group B received iodoform gauze, Group C underwent extraction of both upper and lower third molars with iodoform gauze applied to the lower site, and Group D served as a control group without preventive measures. Postoperative pain, swelling, chewing difficulty, and drowsiness were assessed using questionnaires and visual analog scales where applicable.
resultsPatients treated with iodoform gauze (Groups B and C) demonstrated postoperative outcomes comparable to those observed in the antibiotic group (Group A), with a non-significant trend toward shorter pain duration. Group C reported the most favorable subjective recovery outcomes. The control group experienced the longest duration of postoperative pain and chewing difficulties.
conclusionLocal iodine-based wound management following third molar extraction is a comparable option to systemic antibiotic therapy.
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.