Light-cured resin "Barricaid" - An aesthetic and biocompatible dressing: A step ahead

Madan, Ellora; Bharti, Vipin; Chaubey, Krishna K; Arora, Vipin; Thakur, Rajesh K.; Nirwal, Anubha

doi:10.4103/0972-124x.124494

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to manufacture guidelines this material is aesthetically pleasing, ease to handle and manipulate and under operator"s control for rate of curing. Moreover several studies 15,16 claim for the same.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Untitled

2017

IJPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periodontal dressings were widely used after flap surgery to protect the surgical site since long. This study compared polyether urethane dimethacrylate resin based Barricaid dressing and non-eugenol based periodontal dressings in the perspective of pain, esthetics and patient acceptance using a randomized split-mouth study design. Fifteen patients coming to the Department of Periodontics at ITS Dental College and diagnosed as a case of generalized chronic periodontitis were selected. Total 30sites (2 sites in each patient) requiring the flap surgery were selected and contralateral sites in each patient were randomly allocated into two groups. At baseline plaque index, Modified gingival index were recorded. In group-1 non-eugenol dressing and in group-II light cured periodontal dressing were applied to secure the surgical sites after flap surgery. At day1,2 and 3 pain and discomort was assessed using Numeric Pain Rating Scale.(NPRS) After 7 days patients were recalled for removal of dressing, recording the indices and asked to fill a questionarrie regarding the patient acceptability. Collected data were subjected to statistical analysis and non-significant difference was found in mean NPRS between both groups. After 7 days there was statistically significant better taste, smell and appearance for Barricaid group patients as compared to Coe-pack group. In summation, Barricaid is more preferred dressing over Coe-pack.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 61%

Untitled

2017

IJPSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in accordance with the findings of Madan et al . [ 27 ] and Smeekens et al . [ 28 ] who reported satisfactory healing of surgically treated oral tissues after application of a photocuring periodontal dressing material based on the histological evaluation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gingival tissue response following placement of a light cure dressing and a non-eugenol dressing after periodontal flap procedure: A comparative clinical study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Due to its formulation, based on polyether urethane dimethacrylate resin, this material possesses superior physical properties such as easy handling and adequate working and setting times. 5 After curing, this product has rubber-consistency, low solubility, and translucent pink color, which is esthetically pleasing. 6 Despite that, the evaluation of physical properties of periodontal dressings is extremely valuable to predict the material's clinical behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological and mechanical characterization of commercial and experimental periodontal surgical dressings

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and mechanical properties of two commercially available and one experimental periodontal dressing materials. The cytotoxicity of Periobond ® , Barricaid ® and one experimental periodontal dressing based on Exothane ® 8 monomer was tested on 3T3/NIH mouse fibroblast. Genotoxicity was assessed by micronuclei formation, and cell alterations were analyzed using light microscopy. Both biological assays were performed using the eluate obtained from specimens after 24, 72, or 168 hours of incubation. Mechanical characterization was assessed through the ultimate tensile strength and the water sorption and solubility tests. The significance level of α = 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses. All the materials promoted a cell viability lower than 60% in all evaluated times. In general, the cell viability was significantly reduced after 72 and 168h of specimens' incubation. Considering the factor material, there were not statistical differences in the cell viability (p = 0.156). The genotoxicity was not statistically significant among the groups in the different periods of time (p > 0.05). Differences in the ultimate tensile strength values were not statistically significant different among the groups (p = 0.125). Periobond ® showed the higher water sorption values (p < 0.001). Regarding solubility, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.098). All the periodontal dressing materials evaluated in this study exerted a cytotoxic effect against mouse fibroblasts, and their toxicity became more evident over time. Among the materials evaluated, the experimental light-cure type has shown overall similar properties to the commercial references.

show abstract

Light-cured resin "Barricaid" - An aesthetic and biocompatible dressing: A step ahead

Cited by 10 publications

References 15 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Gingival tissue response following placement of a light cure dressing and a non-eugenol dressing after periodontal flap procedure: A comparative clinical study

Biological and mechanical characterization of commercial and experimental periodontal surgical dressings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About