ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Calendula officinalis and Povidone-Iodine in Facial Wound Healing.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimFacial wound healing is an important aspect of postoperative care in oral and maxillofacial surgery, because optimal healing is essential for both functional and esthetic outcomes. Topical agents with antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties are routinely used to enhance wound healing and to prevent postoperative complications. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective observational clinical study included 64 participants with facial wounds who required postoperative wound care. Participants were divided into two observational groups based on the topical medication prescribed during routine clinical practice. Group A included 32 participants treated with
resultsThe mean age of participants was 31.6 ± 9.4 years in group A and 33.1 ± 10.2 years in group B. Baseline EHS scores were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). A significant improvement in wound healing was observed in both groups throughout the follow-up period (p < 0.001). However, group A demonstrated significantly higher total EHS scores than group B from day three onwards. At day 14, the mean total EHS was 7.81 ± 0.61 in group A compared to 7.06 ± 0.87 in group B (p = 0.001). Group A also showed significantly better re-epithelialization and lower inflammation scores during follow-up evaluation.
conclusion
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.