Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Comparison of Chlorhexidine, Chlorhexidine with anti-discoloration system, and Polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine on early wound healing after dental implant placement: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis randomized clinical trial evaluated the effects of three different antiseptic mouth rinses, chlorhexidine (CHX), CHX with anti-discoloration system (CHX ADS), and povidone-iodine (PVP-Iodine), on early wound healing, plaque formation, microbial load, inflammation biomarkers, and patient satisfaction after dental implant placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty patients received one dental implant and were assigned by a computer-generated simple random allocation (random.org) to rinse with either CHX 0.2%, CHX ADS 0.2%, or PVP-Iodine 10% preoperatively and for 10 days postoperatively. No blinding was implemented. Primary outcome of the study was the assessment of the Early Wound Healing Index (EHI). Secondary outcomes included bacterial load of five periopathogens, levels of activated matrix metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP-8), plaque index (PI), and patient satisfaction. Statistical analysis employed Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed among the three groups in EHI scores, microbiological profiles, aMMP-8 levels, or PI at any time point. However, CHX ADS was rated significantly more favorably by patients regarding taste, dysgeusia, mucosal burning, and tooth discoloration (all p < 0.05). Interrater agreement on EHI was substantial (κ = 0.72).
conclusionsAll tested mouth rinses demonstrated comparable efficacy in promoting early wound healing and infection control after implant surgery. CHX ADS showed superior patient acceptance, suggesting its potential as a preferred option based on subjective tolerability. Standardization of healing assessment indices is recommended for future studies to enhance comparability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: While CHX, CHX ADS, and PVP-Iodine were equally effective for early peri-implant wound healing, CHX ADS showed better patient acceptance with fewer side effects (taste alteration, tooth discoloration), which is likely to improve compliance, reflecting enhanced tolerability rather than superior healing efficacy. This finding may guide clinicians in selecting antiseptic protocols that optimize both clinical outcomes and patient comfort and patient compliance.
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.