{"title":"氯己定凝胶对下颌阻生第三磨牙经牙槽拔牙后牙槽骨炎和术后疼痛的预防作用:一项随机研究","authors":"Olufemi Erinoso, Olakunle Ogunbayo, Ayodele Adesina, Olutayo James, Akin Ladeinde, Olugbemiga Ogunlewe, Ademola Olaitan","doi":"10.1111/ors.12857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel with warm saline mouth rinse (WSMR) in the prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO) following transalveolar impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) extraction after accounting for surgical operative confounding factors. Materials and Methods We conducted a parallel design randomized study. Participants were consenting adults randomly assigned to 0.9% WSMR and 0.2% chlorhexidine gel (administered twice daily post‐operatively) groups. All participants were followed up daily post‐operatively for one week. The primary outcome was an incidence of AO, assessed using Blum's criteria. Fischer's exact tests and regression models were used to investigate the effect of interventions on AO. Results One hundred participants were enrolled in the study, with 50 participants in each group. A higher incidence of AO was observed in the WSMR group than the chlorhexidine group (16% vs. 2%, p = 0.01). However, after adjusting for duration of extraction (aOR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.71) and bone operating time (aOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.47), the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions In conclusion, the study demonstrates that the application of the 0.2% chlorhexidine gel was not significantly more effective in preventing AO compared with the use of WSMR following transalveolar IMTM extraction after controlling for operative factors.","PeriodicalId":38418,"journal":{"name":"Oral Surgery","volume":" 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of chlorhexidine gel on the prevention of alveolar osteitis and post‐operative pain following transalveolar extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A randomized study\",\"authors\":\"Olufemi Erinoso, Olakunle Ogunbayo, Ayodele Adesina, Olutayo James, Akin Ladeinde, Olugbemiga Ogunlewe, Ademola Olaitan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ors.12857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel with warm saline mouth rinse (WSMR) in the prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO) following transalveolar impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) extraction after accounting for surgical operative confounding factors. Materials and Methods We conducted a parallel design randomized study. Participants were consenting adults randomly assigned to 0.9% WSMR and 0.2% chlorhexidine gel (administered twice daily post‐operatively) groups. All participants were followed up daily post‐operatively for one week. The primary outcome was an incidence of AO, assessed using Blum's criteria. Fischer's exact tests and regression models were used to investigate the effect of interventions on AO. Results One hundred participants were enrolled in the study, with 50 participants in each group. A higher incidence of AO was observed in the WSMR group than the chlorhexidine group (16% vs. 2%, p = 0.01). However, after adjusting for duration of extraction (aOR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.71) and bone operating time (aOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.47), the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions In conclusion, the study demonstrates that the application of the 0.2% chlorhexidine gel was not significantly more effective in preventing AO compared with the use of WSMR following transalveolar IMTM extraction after controlling for operative factors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral Surgery\",\"volume\":\" 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ors.12857\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ors.12857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要目的在考虑手术干扰因素后,比较0.2%氯己定凝胶与温盐水漱口水(WSMR)预防经牙槽阻生下颌第三磨牙(IMTM)拔牙后牙槽骨炎(AO)的疗效。材料与方法采用平行随机设计。参与者是同意的成年人,随机分配到0.9% WSMR和0.2%氯己定凝胶组(术后每天两次给药)。所有患者术后每天随访一周。主要结果是AO的发生率,采用Blum标准进行评估。采用Fischer精确检验和回归模型研究干预措施对AO的影响。结果100名参与者被纳入研究,每组50名参与者。WSMR组AO发生率高于氯己定组(16% vs. 2%, p = 0.01)。然而,在调整提取时间后(aOR: 0.18;95% CI: 0.02, 1.71)和骨手术时间(aOR: 0.16;95% CI: 0.02, 1.47),差异无统计学意义。综上所述,本研究表明,在控制手术因素后,应用0.2%氯己定凝胶预防AO的效果并不比使用WSMR更明显。
Effect of chlorhexidine gel on the prevention of alveolar osteitis and post‐operative pain following transalveolar extraction of impacted mandibular third molars: A randomized study
Abstract Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel with warm saline mouth rinse (WSMR) in the prevention of alveolar osteitis (AO) following transalveolar impacted mandibular third molar (IMTM) extraction after accounting for surgical operative confounding factors. Materials and Methods We conducted a parallel design randomized study. Participants were consenting adults randomly assigned to 0.9% WSMR and 0.2% chlorhexidine gel (administered twice daily post‐operatively) groups. All participants were followed up daily post‐operatively for one week. The primary outcome was an incidence of AO, assessed using Blum's criteria. Fischer's exact tests and regression models were used to investigate the effect of interventions on AO. Results One hundred participants were enrolled in the study, with 50 participants in each group. A higher incidence of AO was observed in the WSMR group than the chlorhexidine group (16% vs. 2%, p = 0.01). However, after adjusting for duration of extraction (aOR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.71) and bone operating time (aOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.47), the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions In conclusion, the study demonstrates that the application of the 0.2% chlorhexidine gel was not significantly more effective in preventing AO compared with the use of WSMR following transalveolar IMTM extraction after controlling for operative factors.