ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Histological effects of chitosan, chitosan-carried hyaluronic acid, and photobiomodulation on palatal wound healing in rats: an in vivo study.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the histological effects of topical chitosan (CS), a hyaluronic acid-chitosan gel (HA/CS), and photobiomodulation (PBM) on palatal wound healing in rats.
methodsSixty male Wistar rats were randomized to control, CS, HA/CS, or PBM groups (n = 15/group). Standardized 5-mm full-thickness palatal wounds were created. Gels were applied three times daily; PBM (660 nm, 150 mW, 4.2 J/cm², 14 s) was administered on days 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13. Five independent animals/group were assessed on days 3, 7, and 14. The animal was the experimental unit, and re-epithelialization was the prespecified primary outcome. Ordinal scores were compared at each endpoint using Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-adjusted Dunn tests.
resultsHA/CS had higher re-epithelialization scores than control on days 3 (adjusted p = 0.003) and 7 (adjusted p = 0.024), and than PBM on day 3 (adjusted p = 0.015). PBM exceeded control on day 7 (adjusted p = 0.024). All day-14 animals had the maximum epithelial score. HA/CS had higher fibroblast scores than control on day 3; all interventions had higher fibroblast and angiogenesis scores than control on days 7 and 14. Collagen scores exceeded control with CS and HA/CS on day 3 and HA/CS on days 7 and 14.
conclusionsThe tested HA/CS formulation showed favorable early epithelial and selected stromal findings. Day-14 epithelial scores showed a ceiling effect. HA-specific effects and HA-CS synergy cannot be established.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878922What 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.