Third Molar SurgeryNCT07364253
'Propolis Versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate on Wound Healing After Third Molar Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial'
A study testing Third molar Surgery with propolis gargle and Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconate in people with Third Molar Surgery and Post Operative Analgesia, run by Ataturk University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
The goal of this study is to examine the effects of propolis gargle on wound healing following third molar surgery and to compare it with chlorhexidine gluconate. The main question it aims to answer is: Is propolis-containing gargle safe and effective alternative to chlorhexidine gluconate following impacted third… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Third Molar Surgery, Post Operative Analgesia
- What is being tested?
- Third molar Surgery with propolis gargle and Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconate
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 52 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 5 Jan 2021to 7 Jan 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Clinical diagnosis of the impacted teeth were classified as Class II level B mesioangular position
- Patients from a socioeconomic level who can actively use postoperative gargles
Who cannot join
- Individuals with third molars exhibiting acute infection
- smokers
- pregnant women
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Ataturk University Faculty of Dentistry
Erzurum, Yakutiye, 25240
About this study
Official title: Clinical Evaluation Of The Effects Of Propolis Gargle On Wound Healing After Impacted Third Molar Surgery
The goal of this study is to examine the effects of propolis gargle on wound healing following third molar surgery and to compare it with chlorhexidine gluconate. The main question it aims to answer is:
Is propolis-containing gargle safe and effective alternative to chlorhexidine gluconate following impacted third molar surgery? Does propolis demonstrate comparable outcomes in pain control and mouth opening ?
Read the detailed description
This prospective, randomized clinical study included 52 healthy patients (ASA I) who underwent impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group used 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate gargle, while the other used a 3% propolis-containing gargle. Gargles were applied twice daily for one minute from postoperative day 2 to day 7. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), while edema, maximum mouth opening, wound healing, and postoperative complications were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
- Conditions
- Third Molar Surgery, Post Operative Analgesia
- Being tested
- Third molar Surgery with propolis gargle, Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconate
- Keywords
- third molar surgery, propolis gargle, chlorhexidine gluconate
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Third molar Surgery with propolis gargleProcedure or surgery
The patients were anesthetized with inferior alveolar, lingual, and buccal nerve blocks using 4 ml of articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ultracaine D-S Fort, Aventis). The tooth could be observed by elevating a full-thickness triangular mucoperiosteal flap. The tooth was extracted following an osteotomy using a bur. The tooth was sectioned and extracted, if required. Curettage was conducted in the presence of a residual dental follicle. The wound was sutured with silk thread. All procedures were conducted by the same physician. Postoperatively, antibiotics (amoxicillin combined with clavulanic acid, 2 g daily for 5 days) and analgesics (paracetamol 1 g, up to 4 times daily for 3 days) were recommended. The group was administered a 3% propolis gargle (formulated in an ethanol solution, twice daily for 1 minute, prepared in the Departments of Pharmacology.
Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconateProcedure or surgery
The patients were anesthetized with inferior alveolar, lingual, and buccal nerve blocks using 4 ml of articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ultracaine D-S Fort, Aventis). The tooth could be observed by elevating a full-thickness triangular mucoperiosteal flap. The tooth was extracted following an osteotomy using a bur. The tooth was sectioned and extracted, if required. Curettage was conducted in the presence of a residual dental follicle. The wound was sutured with silk thread. All procedures were conducted by the same physician. Postoperatively, antibiotics (amoxicillin combined with clavulanic acid, 2 g daily for 5 days) and analgesics (paracetamol 1 g, up to 4 times daily for 3 days) were recommended. The group was administered chlorhexidine gluconate (0.12%) gargle, twice daily for 1 minute.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Propolis gargle | Active comparator | Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group used 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate gargle, while the other used a 3% propolis-containing gargle. Gargles were applied twice daily for one minute from postoperative day 2 to day 7. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), while edema, maximum mouth opening, wound healing, and postoperative complications were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. Receives: Procedure: Third molar Surgery with propolis gargle |
| Chlorhexidine Gluconate gargle | Active comparator | Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group used 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate gargle, while the other used a 3% propolis-containing gargle. Gargles were applied twice daily for one minute from postoperative day 2 to day 7. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), while edema, maximum mouth opening, wound healing, and postoperative complications were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. Receives: Procedure: Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconate |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Edema
Edema (assessed by measuring the distances between the tragus and lip corner, as well as the outer corner of the eye and mandibular corner, with measurements taken twice using a paper ruler and averaged), It was measured before surgery, after surgery second and seventh days.
Measured: Before surgery to after surgery seventh day
Pain after surgery
Patient records were collected on the second and seventh days post-operation. The evaluated parameters included pain (measured using the VAS scale). Visual analog scale is used to measure pain intensity. It consists of a straight line usually 10 cm. 0: no pain, 10: worst pain imaginable. The patient marks the point that best represents their pain.
Measured: After surgery, post- op second and seventh day
Secondary outcomes (2)
Maximum mouth opening
Maximum mouth opening (the distance between the lower and upper incisors) were measured before surgery and after surgery second and seventh day.
Measured: Before surgery to post surgery seventh day
Wound aperture
Wound aperture after surgery was examined for two groups
Measured: From surgery to seventh day after surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted23 Jan 2026
- Study start5 Jan 2021
- Primary completion3 Jun 2021
- Study completion7 Jan 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Third Molar SurgeryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ataturk UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 52 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ataturk University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Zeynep Bayramoglu, Ataturk University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07364253
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2020/3-4
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 16 Jan 2026
- Last updated
- 2 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Evaluation Of The Effects Of Propolis Gargle On Wound Healing After Impacted Third Molar Surgery
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07364253
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2020/3-4
- Conditions
- Third Molar Surgery, Post Operative Analgesia
- Keywords
- third molar surgery, propolis gargle, chlorhexidine gluconate
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 52 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ataturk UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Jan 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 3 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 7 Jan 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 23 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this study is to examine the effects of propolis gargle on wound healing following third molar surgery and to compare it with chlorhexidine gluconate. The main question it aims to answer is:
Is propolis-containing gargle safe and effective alternative to chlorhexidine gluconate following impacted third molar surgery? Does propolis demonstrate comparable outcomes in pain control and mouth opening ?
Detailed description
This prospective, randomized clinical study included 52 healthy patients (ASA I) who underwent impacted mandibular third molar surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group used 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate gargle, while the other used a 3% propolis-containing gargle. Gargles were applied twice daily for one minute from postoperative day 2 to day 7. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), while edema, maximum mouth opening, wound healing, and postoperative complications were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Propolis gargle | Active comparator | Procedure: Third molar Surgery with propolis garglePatients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group used 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate gargle, while the other used a 3% propolis-containing gargle. Gargles were applied twice daily for one minute from postoperative day 2 to day 7. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), while edema, maximum mouth opening, wound healing, and postoperative complications were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. |
| Chlorhexidine Gluconate gargle | Active comparator | Procedure: Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconatePatients were randomly allocated into two groups: one group used 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate gargle, while the other used a 3% propolis-containing gargle. Gargles were applied twice daily for one minute from postoperative day 2 to day 7. Pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), while edema, maximum mouth opening, wound healing, and postoperative complications were assessed preoperatively and on postoperative days 2 and 7. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Clinical diagnosis of the impacted teeth were classified as Class II level B mesioangular position
- Patients from a socioeconomic level who can actively use postoperative gargles
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Individuals with third molars exhibiting acute infection
- smokers
- pregnant women
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Third molar Surgery with propolis gargleThe patients were anesthetized with inferior alveolar, lingual, and buccal nerve blocks using 4 ml of articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ultracaine D-S Fort, Aventis). The tooth could be observed by elevating a full-thickness triangular mucoperiosteal flap. The tooth was extracted following an osteotomy using a bur. The tooth was sectioned and extracted, if required. Curettage was conducted in the presence of a residual dental follicle. The wound was sutured with silk thread. All procedures were conducted by the same physician. Postoperatively, antibiotics (amoxicillin combined with clavulanic acid, 2 g daily for 5 days) and analgesics (paracetamol 1 g, up to 4 times daily for 3 days) were recommended. The group was administered a 3% propolis gargle (formulated in an ethanol solution, twice daily for 1 minute, prepared in the Departments of Pharmacology. | Procedure or surgery | Propolis gargle |
| Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconateThe patients were anesthetized with inferior alveolar, lingual, and buccal nerve blocks using 4 ml of articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine (Ultracaine D-S Fort, Aventis). The tooth could be observed by elevating a full-thickness triangular mucoperiosteal flap. The tooth was extracted following an osteotomy using a bur. The tooth was sectioned and extracted, if required. Curettage was conducted in the presence of a residual dental follicle. The wound was sutured with silk thread. All procedures were conducted by the same physician. Postoperatively, antibiotics (amoxicillin combined with clavulanic acid, 2 g daily for 5 days) and analgesics (paracetamol 1 g, up to 4 times daily for 3 days) were recommended. The group was administered chlorhexidine gluconate (0.12%) gargle, twice daily for 1 minute. | Procedure or surgery | Chlorhexidine Gluconate gargle |
Primary outcome
Edema
Time frame: Before surgery to after surgery seventh day
Edema (assessed by measuring the distances between the tragus and lip corner, as well as the outer corner of the eye and mandibular corner, with measurements taken twice using a paper ruler and averaged), It was measured before surgery, after surgery second and seventh days.
Pain after surgery
Time frame: After surgery, post- op second and seventh day
Patient records were collected on the second and seventh days post-operation. The evaluated parameters included pain (measured using the VAS scale). Visual analog scale is used to measure pain intensity. It consists of a straight line usually 10 cm. 0: no pain, 10: worst pain imaginable. The patient marks the point that best represents their pain.
2 secondary outcomes
Maximum mouth opening
Time frame: Before surgery to post surgery seventh day
Wound aperture
Time frame: From surgery to seventh day after surgery
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Feb 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Third Molar Surgery
Recruiting
Aescin-Based Herbal Extract (Reparil) for Postoperative Sequelae After Mandibular Third Molar Surgery
Postoperative Pain, Facial Swelling
Recruiting
Effect of Collagen Membranes on Distal Periodontal Healing of Second Molars After Impacted Mandibular Third Molar Surgery.
Periodontal Defect
RecruitingPhase 1/2
A Study of CYT-1010 in Healthy Volunteers and Participants With Acute Pain After Third Molar Extraction
Acute Postoperative Pain, Dental Pain
Recruiting
Effect of Alpha-Band Binaural Beats on Stress and Recovery in Third Molar Surgery
Dental Anxiety, Postoperative Pain
Not yet recruiting
Antibacterial Effect and Soft Tissue Healing of Chlorhexidine-Coated Polyglactin 910 Sutures After Impacted Lower Third Molar Surgery
Impacted Third Molar Tooth, Surgical Wound Healing
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Third molar Surgery with propolis gargle and Third molar surgery with chlorhexidine gluconate in people with Third Molar Surgery and Post Operative Analgesia, run by Ataturk University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Feb 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Edema (time frame: Before surgery to after surgery seventh day). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Feb 2026.