Cargando…

Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study

AIM: The aim was to compare the gingival tissue response following placement of a light cure dressing (Barricaid(®)) and a non-eugenol periodontal dressing (Coe-Pak(™)) after periodontal flap procedure. This was carried out by evaluating plaque deposition underneath both the dressings, healing respo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kakar, Ankita, Lamba, Arundeep Kaur, Tandon, Shruti, Faraz, Farrukh, Ahad, Abdul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5812078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29456396
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jnsbm.JNSBM_75_17
_version_ 1783299972940169216
author Kakar, Ankita
Lamba, Arundeep Kaur
Tandon, Shruti
Faraz, Farrukh
Ahad, Abdul
author_facet Kakar, Ankita
Lamba, Arundeep Kaur
Tandon, Shruti
Faraz, Farrukh
Ahad, Abdul
author_sort Kakar, Ankita
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim was to compare the gingival tissue response following placement of a light cure dressing (Barricaid(®)) and a non-eugenol periodontal dressing (Coe-Pak(™)) after periodontal flap procedure. This was carried out by evaluating plaque deposition underneath both the dressings, healing response and the patient preference for each. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 patients with chronic generalized periodontitis requiring surgery in at least two different quadrants were enrolled for this split-mouth study. After periodontal flap surgery, Coe-Pak(™) was placed in the quadrant assigned to Group I and Barricaid(®) was placed in the other quadrant assigned to Group II. Clinical parameters were recorded on day 7 and day 14. Patient comfort and pain levels were also evaluated by a questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in wound healing and the clinical gingival parameters between two groups. The only significant difference was found in the plaque attached underneath the dressing, with Coe-Pak(™) showing greater plaque accumulation than Barricaid(®). Seventy five (75) % of the patients preferred Barricaid(®) over Coe-Pak(™), based on its appearance and taste. CONCLUSION: The non-eugenol dressing seemed to retain more plaque on its undersurface than light-cure dressing. However, this did not have much influence on the healing outcome and clinical gingival parameters, which were optimal and comparable in both groups. The greater number of patients showed a preference for light cure dressing, based on its superior esthetics and taste.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5812078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58120782018-02-16 Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study Kakar, Ankita Lamba, Arundeep Kaur Tandon, Shruti Faraz, Farrukh Ahad, Abdul J Nat Sci Biol Med Original Article AIM: The aim was to compare the gingival tissue response following placement of a light cure dressing (Barricaid(®)) and a non-eugenol periodontal dressing (Coe-Pak(™)) after periodontal flap procedure. This was carried out by evaluating plaque deposition underneath both the dressings, healing response and the patient preference for each. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 patients with chronic generalized periodontitis requiring surgery in at least two different quadrants were enrolled for this split-mouth study. After periodontal flap surgery, Coe-Pak(™) was placed in the quadrant assigned to Group I and Barricaid(®) was placed in the other quadrant assigned to Group II. Clinical parameters were recorded on day 7 and day 14. Patient comfort and pain levels were also evaluated by a questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in wound healing and the clinical gingival parameters between two groups. The only significant difference was found in the plaque attached underneath the dressing, with Coe-Pak(™) showing greater plaque accumulation than Barricaid(®). Seventy five (75) % of the patients preferred Barricaid(®) over Coe-Pak(™), based on its appearance and taste. CONCLUSION: The non-eugenol dressing seemed to retain more plaque on its undersurface than light-cure dressing. However, this did not have much influence on the healing outcome and clinical gingival parameters, which were optimal and comparable in both groups. The greater number of patients showed a preference for light cure dressing, based on its superior esthetics and taste. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5812078/ /pubmed/29456396 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jnsbm.JNSBM_75_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kakar, Ankita
Lamba, Arundeep Kaur
Tandon, Shruti
Faraz, Farrukh
Ahad, Abdul
Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study
title Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study
title_full Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study
title_fullStr Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study
title_full_unstemmed Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study
title_short Gingival Tissue Response Following Placement of a Light Cure Dressing and a Non-eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Procedure: A Comparative Clinical Study
title_sort gingival tissue response following placement of a light cure dressing and a non-eugenol dressing after periodontal flap procedure: a comparative clinical study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5812078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29456396
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jnsbm.JNSBM_75_17
work_keys_str_mv AT kakarankita gingivaltissueresponsefollowingplacementofalightcuredressingandanoneugenoldressingafterperiodontalflapprocedureacomparativeclinicalstudy
AT lambaarundeepkaur gingivaltissueresponsefollowingplacementofalightcuredressingandanoneugenoldressingafterperiodontalflapprocedureacomparativeclinicalstudy
AT tandonshruti gingivaltissueresponsefollowingplacementofalightcuredressingandanoneugenoldressingafterperiodontalflapprocedureacomparativeclinicalstudy
AT farazfarrukh gingivaltissueresponsefollowingplacementofalightcuredressingandanoneugenoldressingafterperiodontalflapprocedureacomparativeclinicalstudy
AT ahadabdul gingivaltissueresponsefollowingplacementofalightcuredressingandanoneugenoldressingafterperiodontalflapprocedureacomparativeclinicalstudy