Cargando…

How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study

BACKGROUND: Collagen membranes have some benefits include promoting wound healing through isolation, clot stabilization, wound stability, and hemostasis, enhancing primary wound coverage through its chemotactic ability to attract fibroblasts, and augmenting flap thickness by providing a collagenous...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kilinc, Adnan, Ataol, Mert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28982352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0416-z
_version_ 1783269117463101440
author Kilinc, Adnan
Ataol, Mert
author_facet Kilinc, Adnan
Ataol, Mert
author_sort Kilinc, Adnan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Collagen membranes have some benefits include promoting wound healing through isolation, clot stabilization, wound stability, and hemostasis, enhancing primary wound coverage through its chemotactic ability to attract fibroblasts, and augmenting flap thickness by providing a collagenous scaffold. The purpose of this study was to compare primary and secondary healing and collagen membrane-based primary healing after surgical removal of partial impacted mandibular third molars, evaluating the incidence of postoperative complications and analyzing the swelling, mouth opening, and pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: the SC (Secondary closure) group, the PC (Primary closure) group, and the MBPC (membrane based primary closure) group. Data were collected on pain, mouth opening, swelling, and complications experienced by the patients. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the pain (p > 0.05), relatively. The swelling recorded on postoperative days 2 and 7 was lower in the SC group than in the PC (p = 0.046 and 0.00) and in MBPC (p = 0.005 and 0.002) groups, respectively. Mouth opening showed a statistically significant difference between the three groups at day 2 (p = 0.00). Wound dehiscence was shown in 6 patients in the PC (20%) group and 2 patients in the MBPC (6.7%) group. Dry socket was observed 3 patients in the SC group (10%), 2 patients in the PC group (6.7%), and no dry socket in the MBPC group. No cases of infection or postoperative bleeding were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: The secondary closure provides a marked advantage over the primary closure in terms of swelling and mouth opening. However, the absence of alveolitis in the primary closure using the collagen membrane and minimal wound dehiscence, suggests that membrane use may support primary healing in terms of wound healing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5629786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56297862017-10-17 How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study Kilinc, Adnan Ataol, Mert BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Collagen membranes have some benefits include promoting wound healing through isolation, clot stabilization, wound stability, and hemostasis, enhancing primary wound coverage through its chemotactic ability to attract fibroblasts, and augmenting flap thickness by providing a collagenous scaffold. The purpose of this study was to compare primary and secondary healing and collagen membrane-based primary healing after surgical removal of partial impacted mandibular third molars, evaluating the incidence of postoperative complications and analyzing the swelling, mouth opening, and pain. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: the SC (Secondary closure) group, the PC (Primary closure) group, and the MBPC (membrane based primary closure) group. Data were collected on pain, mouth opening, swelling, and complications experienced by the patients. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the pain (p > 0.05), relatively. The swelling recorded on postoperative days 2 and 7 was lower in the SC group than in the PC (p = 0.046 and 0.00) and in MBPC (p = 0.005 and 0.002) groups, respectively. Mouth opening showed a statistically significant difference between the three groups at day 2 (p = 0.00). Wound dehiscence was shown in 6 patients in the PC (20%) group and 2 patients in the MBPC (6.7%) group. Dry socket was observed 3 patients in the SC group (10%), 2 patients in the PC group (6.7%), and no dry socket in the MBPC group. No cases of infection or postoperative bleeding were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: The secondary closure provides a marked advantage over the primary closure in terms of swelling and mouth opening. However, the absence of alveolitis in the primary closure using the collagen membrane and minimal wound dehiscence, suggests that membrane use may support primary healing in terms of wound healing. BioMed Central 2017-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5629786/ /pubmed/28982352 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0416-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kilinc, Adnan
Ataol, Mert
How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study
title How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study
title_full How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study
title_fullStr How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study
title_full_unstemmed How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study
title_short How effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? A prospective randomized comparative study
title_sort how effective is collagen resorbable membrane placement after partially impacted mandibular third molar surgery on postoperative morbidity? a prospective randomized comparative study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28982352
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0416-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kilincadnan howeffectiveiscollagenresorbablemembraneplacementafterpartiallyimpactedmandibularthirdmolarsurgeryonpostoperativemorbidityaprospectiverandomizedcomparativestudy
AT ataolmert howeffectiveiscollagenresorbablemembraneplacementafterpartiallyimpactedmandibularthirdmolarsurgeryonpostoperativemorbidityaprospectiverandomizedcomparativestudy