Effectiveness of 1% versus 0.2% chlorhexidine gels in reducing alveolar osteitis from mandibular third molar surgery: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose: Alveolar osteitis (AO) is the most common postoperative complication of dental extractions. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 1% versus 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel in reducing postoperative AO after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars, and assess the impact of treatment on the Oral HealthRelated Quality of Life (OHRQoL). Material and Methods: This clinical study was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Eighty eight patients underwent surgical extraction of one retained mandibular third molar with the intra-alveolar application of 0.2% CHX gel. Afterwards, they were assigned to one of two groups: 1% CHX gel (n=42) or 0.2% CHX gel (n=46). The patients applied the gel twice a day to the wound for one week. All patients were evaluated for AO. Results: In the 0.2% CHX gel group, 13% of AO incidence was found, while in the 1% CHX gel group, AO incidence was 7%, a difference that was not statistically significant. Variables such as sensation of pain and inflammation at baseline and during one week, as well as OHRQoL of the patients at 24 hours and 7 days post-extraction, gave no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: There are no significant differences in AO after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars, when comparing applying 1% CHX gel twice a day for 7 days with 0.2% CHX gel. Key words:Alveolar osteitis, chlorhexidine gel, third molar.

Effect of intra-alveolar placement of 0.2% chlorhexidine bioadhesive gel on the incidence of alveolar osteitis following the extraction of mandibular third molars. A double-blind randomized clinical trial

“…Torres-Lagares et al found a 42.65% reduction in a pilot study with 30 patients ( 16 ) a 63.33% reduction in a sample of 103 patients ( 12 ), and posteriorly a 57.15% reduction in 38 patients with bleeding disorders ( 15 ), Hita-Iglesias et al ( 13 ) observed a 70% reduction in a study that compared effectiveness of chlorhexidine gel versus chlorhexidine rinse in 73 patients, Haraji found a 65.4% reduction in a split-mouth clinical trial with 80 patients ( 14 ). Rodríguez-Pérez et al ( 17 ) studied the effectiveness of chlorhexidine gel at 0.2% and 1% and observed that there were no significant differences in AO after surgical extraction of mandibular third molars.…”

“…( 1 , 7 - 11 ). Recently some investigations have studied the effect of 0.2% bioadhesive chlorhexidine gel with reductions of 60-70% in the incidence of AO ( 12 - 17 ).…”

Efficiency of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis: A three-month randomized controlled clinical trial

“…Some articles showed that using chlorhexidine (CHX) as adjunctive chemical agent to decontamination, reduced inflammation and microorganisms on the implant surface. Bioadhesive gels with higher concentrations of CHX have shown greater effectiveness in various clinical situations [16,17]. However, ideal treatment for peri-implantitis is not defined yet.…”

The efficacy of intra‐alveolar 0.2% chlorhexidine gel on alveolar osteitis: a meta‐analysis

“…Therefore, dentists or researchers are considering applying CHX gel instead of CHX mouthwash to prevent AO after mandibular third molar extraction(s). Recently, results showed that 0.2% CHX gel could reduce the incidence of AO by 60–70% (Torres‐Lagares et al , ,b; Rodriguez‐Perez et al , ). The CHX gel may be more effective than the CHX solution because the intra‐alveolar positioning of the gel can release active substance more prolonged, generating more direct action on the alveolus, and also allow more bioavailability.…”