Cargando…

A Comparative Clinical Study between Concentrated Growth Factor and Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Management of Dry Socket

Objective   A dry socket is a well-recognized complication of wound healing following tooth extraction. Its etiology is poorly understood and commonly occur among healthy patients. As such, management strategies for dry socket has always been empirical rather than scientific with varying outcome. Th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kamal, Aqsa, Salman, Basheer, Razak, Noor Hayatie Abdul, Samsudin, AB Rani
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd. 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7535966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32777838
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1714765
Descripción
Sumario:Objective   A dry socket is a well-recognized complication of wound healing following tooth extraction. Its etiology is poorly understood and commonly occur among healthy patients. As such, management strategies for dry socket has always been empirical rather than scientific with varying outcome. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of concentrated growth factor (CGF) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and compared them to the conventional treatment in the management of dry socket. Materials and Methods  Sixty patients with one dry socket each, at University Dental Hospital Sharjah, were divided into three treatment groups based on their choice. In group I ( n = 30), conventional treatment comprising of gentle socket curettage and saline irrigation was done. Group II ( n = 15) dry sockets were treated with CGF and group III ( n = 15) sockets were lased with LLLT. All dry socket patients were seen at day 0 for treatment and subsequently followed-up at 4, 7, 14, and 21 days. Pain score, perisocket inflammation, perisocket tenderness, and amount of granulation tissue formation were noted. Statistical Analysis  Data were analyzed as mean values for each treatment group. Comparisons were made for statistical analysis within the group and among the three groups to rank the efficacy of treatment using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant difference is kept at p < 0.05. Results  Conventional treatment group I took more than 7 days to match the healing phase of group II CGF treated socket and group III LLLT irradiated socket ( p = 0.001). When healing rate between CGF and LLLT are compared, LLLT group III showed a delay of 4 days compared with CGF in granulation tissue formation and pain control. Conclusion  CGF treated socket was superior to LLLT in its ability to generate 75% granulation tissue and eliminate pain symptom by day 7 ( p = 0.001).