Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2021
Evaluation of a Cetylpyridinium Chloride-, Dipotassium Glycyrrhizinate-, and Tranexamic Acid-based Mouthwash after Implant Placement: A Double-blind Randomised Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of perioperative oral hygiene management using a cetylpyridinium chloride-, dipotassium glycyrrhizinate, and tranexamic acid-based mouthwash as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene in patients with maxillomandibular fixation: A randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Trial
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the positive effects of a CPC-, GK2-, and TXA-based (CPC/GK2/TXA) mouthwash after implant placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty patients (n = 20) who underwent posterior implant-placement surgery were randomly and evenly allocated to the study or the placebo group. After the mouthwash was used 3x/day for 7 to 10 days postoperatively, sutures were analysed by counting the colony-forming units (CFU) for total aerobes, total G [-] anaerobes, total enterobacteria and total H. influenzae, followed by Real-Time PCR of bacterial-specific DNAs of A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, T. forsythia, T. denticola, P. intermedia, P. micra, F. nucleatum, C. rectus, and E. corrodens. In vitro resistance of P. gingivalis, S. aureus, and P. aeruginosa was analysed. The compatibility of the mouthwash with Straumann SLA implant surfaces was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
resultsSixteen patients (n = 16) completed the trial. A statistically significantly greater number of CFU was found in the placebo group for almost all species, especially for total G [-] anaerobes. No statistically significant in vitro resistance was found for P. gingivalis, S. aureus, and P. aeruginosa. SEM revealed no surface alteration after exposure to the mouthwash.
conclusionThe use of a CPC/GK2/TXA mouthwash inhibited propagation of the bacteria extracted from the post-surgical sutures after implant placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.