Kumbargere N Sumanth, Eachempati Prashanti, Himanshi Aggarwal, Pradeep Kumar, Ashok Lingappa, Murugan S Muthu, Salian Kiran Kumar Krishanappa

Post-extraction bleeding (PEB) is a recognised, frequently encountered complication in dental practice, which is defined as bleeding that continues beyond 8 to 12 hours after dental extraction. The incidence of post-extraction bleeding varies from 0% to 26%. If post-extraction bleeding is not managed, complications can range from soft tissue haematomas to severe blood loss. Local causes of bleeding include soft tissue and bone bleeding. Systemic causes include platelet problems, coagulation disorders or excessive fibrinolysis, and inherited or acquired problems (medication induced). There is a wide array of techniques suggested for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding, which include interventions aimed at both local and systemic causes. To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding. We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 22 March 2016); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 2); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 March 2016); CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 22 March 2016). Due to the ongoing Cochrane project to search EMBASE and add retrieved clinical trials to CENTRAL, we searched only the last 11 months of EMBASE via OVID (1 May 2015 to 22 March 2016). We placed no further restrictions on the language or date of publication. We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/default.aspx). We also checked the reference lists of excluded trials. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment. Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis. We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review. We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).