World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Clinical and Cytotoxic Comparison of Two Periodontal Dressings after Periodontal Flap Surgery

Leila Gholami, Somayeh Ansari-Moghadam, Faezeh Sadeghi, Fereshteh Arbabi-Kalati, Iman Barati

Keywords : Clinical trial, Cytotoxicity, Flap surgery, Periodontal dressing randomized

Citation Information : Gholami L, Ansari-Moghadam S, Sadeghi F, Arbabi-Kalati F, Barati I. Clinical and Cytotoxic Comparison of Two Periodontal Dressings after Periodontal Flap Surgery. World J Dent 2019; 10 (1):7-13.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1594

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Postoperative coverage of periodontal surgery sites can help protect the treated area, facilitate wound healing and decrease postperiodontal surgery pain. The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic and clinical efficacy of two periodontal dressings after periodontal flap surgery. Materials and methods: In this study 23 patients requiring modified Widman flap in at least two quadrants in the same arch were selected; one quadrant was dressed with Reso-pac, and the other was dressed with Coe-pak. The clinical efficacy of these two dressings was evaluated by comparing plaque, granulation tissue formation, pain, bleeding on probing, and color of gingiva. To compare their cytotoxicity, human gingival fibroblast were exposed to 1- and 3-day extracts of the dressings and MTT test was used to measure cell viability after 24 and 48 hours. Cell apoptosis and necrosis were evaluated by flow cytometric analysis. Data were analyzed by Chi-square and independent t-test and SPSS 20 Software. Results: Plaque and granulation tissue formation rates were significantly lower in Reso-pac covered sites compared to coe-pak (p value < 0.001). Other variables including pain, bleeding and gingival color did not show any significant differences (p value 0.05). V iable fi broblast c ells w ere h igher f or R eso-pac compared to Coe-pak (p < 0.05). A higher percentage of necrotic cells in the day one Coe-pak extract group after 24 and 48 hours were observed compared to Reso-pac (6.23 and 4.97 vs. 2.71 and 2.76%). Conclusion: According to our results, Reso-pac is as effective as Coe-pack. It also has further positive effects of less plaque accumulation and granulation tissue formation and is more biocompatible for HGF cells with less cytotoxic effects on cells in the first days after surgery. Clinical significance: Reso-pac may be considered as a dressing of choice in periodontal surgeries with less plaque accumulation and granulation tissue formation plus better biocompatibility and ease of application compared to Coe-pak.


PDF Share
  1. Heidari Z, Mahmoudzadeh-Sagheb H, Hashemi M, Ansarimoghaddam S, Sheibak N. Estimation of volume density of interdental papilla components in patients with chronic periodontitis and interleukin-6 (-174G/C)gene polymorphisms. Dent Res J 2016 Mar-Apr;13(2):139-144.
  2. Moghadam SA, Faghihi S, Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M, Hosseini SK. Comprehensive oral rehabilitation of a patient with aplastic anemia by periodontal and prosthesis treatments. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry. 2012 Apr;33(4):e62-e66.
  3. Sachs HA, Farnosh A, Checchi L, joseph CE. Current status of periodontal dressing. J periodontol 1984;55(12): 689-696.
  4. Wennstrom JL, Heijl L, Lindhe J. Periodontal Surgery: Access Therapy. In: Lindhe J, Lang NP. Textbook of clinical periodontology and Implant Dentistry. 5nd ed. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2; 2008. p. 811.
  5. Farnoush A. Techniques for the protection and coverage of the donor sites in free soft tissue grafts. J Periodontol 1978; 49(8):403-405.
  6. David K, Shetty Neetha J, Swati P. Periodontal Dressings: An Informed View. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical sciences. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2013, January;26(26): 269-272.
  7. Newman P, Addy M. A comparison of periodontal dressings and chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash after the internal bevel flap procedure. J Periodontol 1978;49:576-579.
  8. Kadkhodazadeh M, Baghani Z, Torshabi M, Basirat B. In vitro comparison of biological effects of Coe-Pak and Reso-Pac periodontal dressings. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2017;8(1):e3.
  9. Soheilifar S, Bidgoli M, Soheilifar S, Jafari M. Evaluating the Effect of Periodontal Dressing on Wound Healing after Periodontal Flap Surgery. Sci J of Hamadan Univ Med Sci 2014;20(4): 267-272.
  10. Ghanbari H, Forouzanfar A, Fatemi K, Mokhtari M, Abrishami M, Ebrahiminik Z, and Farazi F. Modified Widman flap procedure: With or without periodontal dressing? Open Journal of Stomatology, 2012;2:170-172.
  11. Shanmugan M, Kumar T, Arun KV, Arun R, Kathik SJ. Clinical and histological evaluation of two dressing material in the healing of palatal wounds. J Indian Soc periodontal 2010;14:241-244.
  12. Bae SB, Lim SB, Chung CH. A Comparative study of clinical effects following periodontal surgery with and without dressing. J Korean Acad Periodontal 1999 Sep;29(3): 693-701.
  13. Petelin M, Pavlica Z, Batista U, Stiblar- Martincic D, Skaleric U. Effects of periodontal dressings on fibroblasts and gingival wound healing in dogs. Acta Veterinaria Hungarica. 2004;52:33-46.
  14. Cheshire PD, Griffiths GS, Griffiths BM, Newman HN. Evaluation of the healing response following placement of Coe-pak and an experimental pack after periodontal flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 1996 Mar;23(1):188-193.
  15. Moghare Abed A, Yaghini J, Tavakoli M, Amjadi MR, Najafian E. Evaluation of the effect of post-operative packing of gingiva on clinical signs and symptoms: a pilot study. J Isfahan Dental School 2011;6(6):705-711.
  16. Sanz M, Newman MG, Anderson L, Matoska W, Otomo- Corgol J, Saltini C. Clinical enhancement of post periodontal surgical therapy by a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouth rinse. J Periodontol 1989;60(10):570-576.
  17. Jorkend L, Skoglund LA. Effect of non-eugenol and eugenol containing periodontal dressings on the incidence and severity of pain after periodontal soft tissue surgery. J Clin Period 1990;17:341-344.
  18. Augustine D, Rao RS, Anbu J, Chidambara Murthy K N. In vitro antiproliferative effect of earthworm coelomic fluid of Eudriluseugeniae, Eiseniafoetida, and Perionyxexcavatus on squamous cell carcinoma-9 cell line: A pilot study. Phcog Res 2017; 9(Suppl S1):61-66.
  19. Augustine D, Rao RS, Anbu J, Chidambara Murthy KN. Anticancer prospects of earthworm extracts: A systematic review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Phcog Rev 2018;12:46-55.
  20. Augustine D, Rao RS, Jayaraman A, Chidambara Murthy K N. Anti-proliferative activity of earthworm coelomic fluid using oral squamous carcinoma KB 3-1 cells: An in vitro study with serine protease analysis. Phcog Mag 2018;14: 528-534.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.