Randomized trial evaluates 1% povidone-iodine for reducing postoperative symptoms in patients undergoing surgery, suggesting improved outcomes.
Background: Postoperative infection, pain, and dry socket remain common complications after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molars. Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) is a broad-spectrum antiseptic with proven bactericidal and anti-inflammatory properties, but its intraoperative use as an irrigant remains under-investigated. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of 1% PVP-I irrigation compared with normal saline in reducing postoperative sequelae following surgical extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Study Design: This randomized controlled trial enrolled 162 healthy patients (96 females, 66 males; mean age 28 yr) requiring mandibular third molar removal. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1% PVP-I (study group, n = 81) or normal saline (control group, n = 81) for intraoperative socket irrigation. Postoperative pain, swelling, and incidence of dry sockets were recorded on days 2 and 7 using a visual analogue scale. Data were analyzed using t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests with a significance level of p <0.05. Results: The PVP-I group demonstrated significantly lower mean pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.01) and day 7 (p = 0.02). Swelling was significantly reduced in the PVP-I group compared to saline across all time points (p <0.001). The incidence of dry socket was also lower in the PVP-I group (6.2%) compared with controls (19.7%; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Intraoperative irrigation with 1% povidone-iodine significantly reduces postoperative pain, swelling, and dry socket incidence following third molar surgery compared with saline irrigation. These findings suggest that PVP-I irrigation may be a simple and cost-effective adjunct to improve postoperative outcomes. Larger multicenter trials are warranted to validate these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albassam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: