GuidelineMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2026
Expert consensus on the use of oral antiseptics in oral surgery: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
Guideline in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 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
backgroundAntiseptic management in oral surgery remains heterogeneous, with no standardised, procedure-specific protocols guiding the perioperative use of agents such as chlorhexidine (CHX) or cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC). This consensus document aims to integrate the best available evidence with structured expert judgement to generate evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the use of oral antiseptics across dentoalveolar and implant surgical scenarios. MATERIALS AND
methodsA structured two-round expert consensus process was employed, combining a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE with a structured expert panel discussion conducted in December 2025. Seven oral surgeons and implantologists from four leading Spanish universities participated. Consensus was organised around five thematic blocks regarding the use of oral antiseptics: indications and safety, preoperative preparation, postoperative care, management of complications, and future research priorities.
resultsFollowing independent duplicate screening, 69 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. CHX 0.12-0.2% (in monotherapy or in combination with CPC) was established as the reference perioperative antiseptic, with evidence supporting its efficacy in reducing postoperative complications (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.80). A risk-stratified postoperative protocol was formulated, incorporating gel, rinse, and spray formulations adapted to individual patient profiles. Povidone-iodine and CPC were identified as evidence-supported alternatives. Complication-specific recommendations were generated for wound dehiscence, alveolar osteitis, and localised postoperative infection, ranging from conservative antiseptic irrigation and intra-alveolar gel application to escalating surgical and systemic antibiotic management based on severity. All recommendations were explicitly classified as evidence-based, expert consensus-derived, or a combination, reflecting the variable quality of supporting data across clinical scenarios.
conclusionsCHX constitutes the gold standard oral antiseptic for perioperative use in oral surgery. The expert panel recommends CHX+CPC combination formulations (e.g., 0.12% CHX+0.05% CPC) as an alternative perioperative antiseptic option, offering comparable antimicrobial efficacy with an improved tolerability profile relative to CHX monotherapy. Individualised, risk-stratified protocols, which account for procedural complexity, patient comorbidities, and antiseptic tolerability, are recommended to optimise clinical outcomes while minimising adverse effects.
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.