Ankita Kakar1, Arundeep Kaur Lamba1, Shruti Tandon1, Farrukh Faraz1, Abdul Ahad2
1Department of Periodontics, Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New Delhi, India.
2Department of Periodontics, Dr. Ziauddin Ahmad Dental College and Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.
DOI: 10.4103/jnsbm.JNSBM_75_17


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.

Keywords: Periodontal dressings, Periodontitis, Surgical flaps, Wound healing.

Please follow and like us:
News Reporter