ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Two Commercially Available Topical Gels As Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing for Gingival Inflammation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGingivitis is a common plaque-induced inflammatory periodontal disease that may progress to periodontitis if left untreated. Adjunctive topical antimicrobial agents may improve the effectiveness of conventional periodontal therapy.
methodsThis randomized controlled clinical trial included 120 participants with gingivitis or Stage I, Grade A periodontitis. Participants were randomly allocated to three groups: Group A received scaling and root planing (SRP) with placebo gel; Group B received SRP with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) gel (CHX group); and Group C received SRP with a combination gel containing 0.5% CHX and 1.5% metronidazole (MTZ) (CHX+MTZ group). Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), and probing pocket depth (PPD) were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 weeks. Intergroup comparisons were performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test.
resultsAll 120 participants completed the study. Baseline intergroup differences were observed for PI (p = 0.010) and GI (p < 0.001), whereas PPD was comparable (p = 0.929). At 12 weeks, both test groups had lower PI and GI scores than the placebo group. Mean PI values were 1.273 ± 0.119 in Group A, 1.229 ± 0.051 in Group B, and 1.213 ± 0.048 in Group C (p = 0.013). Mean GI values were 1.256 ± 0.097, 1.209 ± 0.053, and 1.193 ± 0.053, respectively (p = 0.003). PI and GI did not differ significantly between Groups B and C at 12 weeks. PPD also remained comparable among groups (p = 0.241).
conclusionsBoth CHX gel and the CHX-MTZ combination gel were associated with improvements in plaque control and gingival inflammation when used as adjuncts to SRP. No statistically significant difference was detected between the CHX and CHX+MTZ groups at 12 weeks. Therefore, the present findings do not establish an additional clinical advantage of adding MTZ to CHX under the conditions evaluated.
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.