Journal of periodontology · 2021
Palatal pre-suturing for perioperative hemostasis at free gingival graft donor sites: A randomized, controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kulkarni Mihir Raghavendra, Shettar Leena Gangadhar, Bakshi Purva Vijay, Nikhil Kriti
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The palatal suture has been well known in literature as a method for palatal hemostasis but has not been validated for its efficacy. The aim of this parallel-arm randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of palatal pre-suturing using the greater palatine compression suture (GPCS) in reducing the perioperative hemorrhage associated with the palatal free gingival graft (FGG) procedure.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients requiring the FGG procedure for recession coverage or augmentation of keratinized tissue were recruited in the study and randomized to the GPCS group and the control group. The GPCS was placed using a previously described protocol by a single operator in all the participants in the GPCS group. Perioperative blood loss was estimated by weighing the gauze used to mop the palatal hemorrhage, before and after the procedure. The time required for the surgery was also recorded by an independent observer.
RESULTS: Significantly lesser blood loss was observed in the GPCS group (4.33 ± 0.89 g) as compared with the control group (8.91 ± 4.16 g). The difference in the time taken for the surgical procedure for the GPCS group (73.25 ± 22.35 minutes) was not significantly different from that required for the control group (76.08 ± 14.47 minutes).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that pre-suturing of the palate using the GPCS is an effective technique to reduce the perioperative blood loss associated with the palatal FGG procedure.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients requiring the FGG procedure for recession coverage or augmentation of keratinized tissue were recruited in the study and randomized to the GPCS group and the control group. The GPCS was placed using a previously described protocol by a single operator in all the participants in the GPCS group. Perioperative blood loss was estimated by weighing the gauze used to mop the palatal hemorrhage, before and after the procedure. The time required for the surgery was also recorded by an independent observer.
RESULTS: Significantly lesser blood loss was observed in the GPCS group (4.33 ± 0.89 g) as compared with the control group (8.91 ± 4.16 g). The difference in the time taken for the surgical procedure for the GPCS group (73.25 ± 22.35 minutes) was not significantly different from that required for the control group (76.08 ± 14.47 minutes).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that pre-suturing of the palate using the GPCS is an effective technique to reduce the perioperative blood loss associated with the palatal FGG procedure.