Trial reportClinical implant dentistry and related research2026
Efficacy of Xanthan-Based Chlorhexidine Gel in Peri-Implant Mucositis Treatment: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 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.
- Efficacy of Xanthan-Based Chlorhexidine Gel in Peri-Implant Mucositis Treatment: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the potential benefits of Xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel application in addition to professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM). MATERIAL AND
methodsSubjects diagnosed with PM were consecutively included in this randomized split-mouth study. All participants received a single session of PMPR using titanium curettes, followed by the application of an air-polishing glycine powder device. Implants allocated to the Test group were additionally treated with local delivery of Xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel. Clinical evaluation was performed at T0 (i.e., baseline), at 30 (T1), 90 (T2) and 180 days (T3) after treatment, while treatment success was evaluated at T2 and T3. Change in bleeding on probing (BoP) was considered as primary outcome measure. A logistic multivariate regression model was developed to explore the predictive role of implant and patient-level variables on primary outcome measure.
resultsFifty-nine patients (mean age: 65.4 ± 8.7 years; 54.2% male; 88.1% non-smokers) and 182 implants completed the study. At T1, only the Test group displayed a significant reduction in BoP (p < 0.001), PPD (p = 0.021) and PI (p = 0.021) compared to T0, while at T2 and T3 clinical improvements were recorded within both groups without any statistically significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). T2 Treatment success as well as the frequency distribution of complete (BoP = 0) and partial (BoP ≤ 1, ≤ 2, ≤ 3) disease resolution did not significantly differ between groups (p > 0.05). Multiple regression model revealed that smoking (p = 0.008), and implant position (i.e., premolar p = 0.009) did significantly affect the primary outcome measure.
conclusionThe adjunctive use of XanCHX gel did not result in any statistically significant clinical benefit compared to PMPR alone in the treatment of PM up to 6 months, despite the reported clinical positive effects within the first month after treatment.
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.