Clinical Safety and Healing Outcomes of an Essential-Oil Gel Versus Hyaluronic Acid: A Randomized Controlled Trial After Tooth Extraction

Introduction: – Interest in natural therapeutic approaches in dentistry has grown, particularly for postoperative management following tooth extraction. If the clinical efficacy and tolerability of essential oils and hyaluronic acid are comparable, then they might be a safe alternative. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of essential-oil-based GelCide (essential-oil-based gel) and hyaluronic-acid-based Gengigel (hyaluronic-acid-based gel) for alveolar wound healing. Methods: – A randomized clinical trial was conducted with 90 patients allocated into 3 groups: GelCide (n=30), Gengigel (n=30), and a control group without topical treatment (n=30). Wound area (mm²), inflammation (mm), pain (VAS 0–10), salivary pH, and IL-6 levels (pg/mL) were recorded on days 1, 7, and 14 postextractions. Results: – Both topical treatments demonstrated faster wound contraction than the control group. On day 7, the mean wound area was 15.93 mm² in the GelCide group and 16.12 mm² in the Gengigel group, compared with 21.16 mm² in controls (P<0.001). Inflammation was reduced to 1.30 mm (GelCide) and 1.47 mm (Gengigel) versus 3.07 mm in the control group (P<0.001). IL-6 levels on day 7 were 8.32 pg/mL (GelCide) and 8.18 pg/mL (Gengigel) compared with 10.46 pg/mL in controls (P<0.001). No adverse reactions or intolerance events were recorded in any treated patient. Conclusion: – GelCide exhibited clinical performance and safety comparable to Gengigel, confirming that essential oils can be used safely to modulate inflammation, reduce postoperative pain, and support soft tissue healing. Essential oils constitute a safe and effective natural alternative to hyaluronic acid in postextraction wound care. Their use may be particularly suitable when a biocompatible, phytotherapeutic-based management strategy is preferred.