Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Comparison of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy protocols as adjunct treatment in the management of initial pericoronitis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of two antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) protocols using different methylene blue formulations in the treatment of initial pericoronitis. The research question was whether the new methylene blue formulation provides superior clinical outcomes compared to the conventional formulation. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial involved 34 healthy young patients with pericoronitis. The following groups were established: G1 (positive control, n = 17), irrigation with saline solution and aPDT with conventional methylene blue (0.005%, laser λ = 660 nm, 9 J per point, 318 J/cm²); and G2 (experimental, n = 17), using the same therapy but with a patented new formulation of methylene blue. Pain assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include mouth opening, edema, and quality of life (OHIP-14). Microbiological and immunological analyses were performed to complement clinical outcomes. All outcomes were assessed at baseline and on the fourth day after aPDT.
resultsBoth groups showed statistically significant improvement in pain (G1: p = 0.022; G2: p = 0.001) and mouth opening (G1: p < 0.001; G2: p = 0.002) after treatment. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in final pain and mouth-opening outcomes (p = 0.845 and p = 0.318, respectively).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, both aPDT protocols were associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. No between-group differences were observed in clinical outcomes; differences were limited to microbiological and immunological parameters, with no clinical superiority of the new formulation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both methylene blue formulations may be used as adjunctive treatment options for the management of initial pericoronitis. However, no additional clinical benefit was observed with the new formulation, and these findings do not support a change in current clinical practice.
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.