ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Specialists' agreement and construct validation of a visual scale for assessing mucosal healing after third molar extraction.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo present and validate a digital visual scale for evaluating mucosal wound repair after mandibular third molar extraction. The research seeks to establish a standard-based tool to improve communication in clinical practice and research by reducing subjectivity in postoperative assessments. MATERIALS AND
methodsA digital image scale using four clinical inflammatory stages (Scores 0 to 3) of recovering oral mucosa of tooth extractions sites was construct. Employing electronic forms (n = 300) were sent to dentists to assess agreement with the consensus score, and construct validity in six tooth extraction mucosal wounds examined by specialists or not. Construct validation involved specialists who evaluated the scale's utility, graphic quality, and clinical significance via a 5-point Likert scale. There was a total of eighty-three responses for the agreement consensus, and sixty-seven for construct validation.
resultsThe scale demonstrated a "fair" inter-rater agreement with a Fleiss' Kappa of 0.3018. The average agreement was 64.3%, with high agreement (> 80%) for advanced repair stages (Score 3) and greater variability for intermediate stages (Scores 1 and 2). Validation results showed high acceptance, with 96.6% of participants agreeing on the tool's utility for standardization. There was agreement between specialists and general practitioners. The initial scores may require further descriptive refinement to reduce interpretive overlap but under observer's calibration it can be used across different dental specialties.
conclusionsThe proposed digital scale showed high professional acceptance and potential usefulness for standardizing the assessment of mucosal healing after third molar surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By providing a standardized visual reference, this scale facilitates the early detection of healing deviations or postoperative complications and rationalizes clinical documentation in professional practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42850373What 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.