Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research · 2026
Gingival Tissue Response with Light-Cure Dressing and a Non-Eugenol Dressing after Periodontal Flap Surgery - A Comparative Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Karunanithi Arunagiri, Melath Anil M, Kayakool Subair, Raghavan Venkat, Arulvizhi M, Prakash N
Аннотация
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 a periodontal flap procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients with chronic generalised 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 the 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. According to the oral and periodontal conditions, the predominant species isolated from plaque samples were followed by Gram-positive organisms, Gram-negative organisms were also found.
CONCLUSION: The non-eugenol dressing seemed to retain more plaque on its undersurface than the 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 aesthetics and taste.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients with chronic generalised 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 the 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. According to the oral and periodontal conditions, the predominant species isolated from plaque samples were followed by Gram-positive organisms, Gram-negative organisms were also found.
CONCLUSION: The non-eugenol dressing seemed to retain more plaque on its undersurface than the 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 aesthetics and taste.