Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Clinical effects of two ozone therapy administration methods following mandibular third molar extraction: a parallel-group randomized clinical trial with exploratory salivary biomarker assessment.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSome non-drug methods have been used as adjuncts to minimize tissue damage after third molar extractions, including ozone therapy, although there is no consensus on the most efficient protocol.
objectivesto compare two ozone therapy administration protocols regarding clinical parameters (edema, pain, maximum mouth opening) and salivary biomarkers of tissue injury and redox state. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment included thirty-five volunteers (45 mandibular third molars; 15 teeth per group). Participants were allocated to OZO-GAS (0.1 mL of subperiosteal ozonized gas), OZO-OIL (600 mEq of topical ozonized oil), or PLACEBO, administered immediately postoperatively and after 2 days. Outcome evaluation was performed by an examiner blinded to group allocation. Clinical outcomes were recorded at 24 h, 48 h, and 7 days, and unstimulated saliva was collected at the same time for spectrophotometric analyses.
resultsThe OZO-OIL group showed greater efficacy in reducing postoperative pain compared with PLACEBO (p < 0.05; Holm–Sidak). At 48 h postoperatively, OZO-OIL was associated with reduced salivary protein carbonyls and TBARS, alongside increased uric acid levels, compared with the PLACEBO group (p < 0.05). No consistent clinical or biochemical benefits were observed for the OZO-GAS protocol, and salivary related enzymes (AST, ALT, and ALP) suggested a less favorable biochemical profile in this group .
conclusionsTopical ozonized oil improved postoperative pain following mandibular third molar extraction and was associated with trends toward reduced oxidative damage and enhanced antioxidant defense compared with placebo, while gas administration showed no comparable benefits. The observed biochemical effects should be considered exploratory and correlated with the clinical findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ozonized oil represents a simple, non-pharmacological adjuvant capable of enhancing postoperative recovery after third molar extraction.
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.